Topic: this has bugged me for years  (Read 22266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
this has bugged me for years
« on: September 06, 2009, 08:04:17 pm »
Why was the entire consitition fleet mothballed? The design couldn't have been that hard to upgrade, Oberth class ships are older as noticed with there 3 digit registry, putting them very old. Miriandia class registries also are right around Consistion class's and those vessels still serve and are smaller and more cramped. What was the reason besides a dramtic finish to Star Trek Six was there to retire the Consistion Fleet, I mean the Enterprise A was refit in 2286 and mothballed in 2293 that doesnt make sense at all. Also why are constellation class ships retired from fleet duty.

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2009, 09:02:02 pm »
The Oberth has lower registry numbers not because the ships are older than the Constitution, but rather they, like the first few Mirandas, come from a time when Starfleet batched their hull numbers.  The "book" used for Star Trek I - III was Franz Joseph's Technical Manual, which of course is also one of the books used for Starfleet Battles.  After what I believe was a very private tiff between Joseph and Roddenberry, Roddenberry called the entire book non-canon and proceeded to change some of the stuff that was in that book.  (If you start to look at what Roddenberry did towards the end of his life, you have to wonder if he started suffering from some dementia of sorts)

In the Technical Manual, Starfleet assigned the hull numbers 1700 - (if you believe the number built) 1799 to the Constitution (and her subclasses)  Even if the ship wasn't built, the hull number was reserved for it.  Similar batches were done for Saladin Class Destroyers (500-599) and Federation Class Dreadnoughts (2100-2150).  After Star Trek IV, (and subsequently TNG) Starfleet stopped batching the numbers and just assigned what ever number was next sequentially, although some ships were still batched, especially if near the prototype of the class. (74205 was the registry for the Defiant, while 74210 was the registry for the Valiant)

While Legacy has the Miranda as a TOS refit, it is the only source that I know of that places the Miranda as that age.  I personally view the Miranda as a Cruiser class that was intended to eventually supplant the Constitution, not operate along side of it.  The Oberth I also tag as a relatively new class, which like the Miranda was intended to replace (and did replace) the old Hermes Class Scout ships.  As the Miranda would have been the next replacement cruiser, its hull numbers were batched in the 1800-1899 range. while the Oberth, replacing the Hermes, received the 600-699 batch.  With the debut of the Excelsior and Constellation, Starfleet had to move away from the pre-set batch numbers, and just assign the next available number.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2009, 09:36:12 pm »
Where in Star Trek 6 did it say that they were mothballing the entire constitution class?  As for why the oberths are still in service in the 24th century, part of the reason might be that they weren't designed for the sort of front line duties that the Constitution class was, and were more efficient in their particular niche than a converted constitution class would have been.  While we never saw a constitution in TNG , this is mainly because Roddenbery and his successors wanted the new series to not be stuck in TOS' shadow.  The Stargazer was orignally supposed to be a constitution class ship, but the producers changed their mind at the last minute.  Its possible that they were still in service at that time.  This is evident by the fact that Mirandas and D-7s were still in service in TNG and DS9.  In fact the TMP era Soyuz Class variant of the Miranda Class USS Bozeman which appeared in the episode Cause and Effect was apparently modernized and took part in the battle against the Borg cube in First Contact.  Also, the Excelsiors might have replaced the constitutions in production.  As a result, over time the class would have been phased out of service as older ships were retired.  Even with maintanance, and upgrades, its conceivable that the ships would have eventually been retired due to wear and tear in the 70 years between ST6 and Encounter at Far point.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2009, 09:47:35 pm »
but if you look at systems aboard both Oberth and Mirindia class's there systems match a Consistion refit. So a Connie would have the excact same system layout, and we do not know when the isolieaner computer came out so you could speculate they still use duotronics though refined still in the new excelscior, though in 2294 aboard the EnterpriseB we see what looks like an early isolineaer computer, so excelscior could have been the test bed it did use alot of new technology, also if Mirandia was set to replace the Consistition then what purpose was there to bring the Excelscrior fleet online period. Not only that but Mirandia's lack the room for the science labs and weapons systems of a consitition class, so it couldnt have been the replacement heavy crusiser, nor could have constellation which seems built purley for combat, with 4 naccells and 4 forward firing tubes each capable for 2 shots giving a total of 8 photons per volley forward, Constellation seems more like a ship built for war, which doesnt make sense, as the ship was still undergoing trials when the Kitomer Accords happened, so why would Starfleet keep the ship operational afterwards.

Also it has been theorized that the Enterprise A was a newly built consitition not a refit yorkshire as Star Trek IV puts the Yorkshire adrift in deep space, and unlikly to the new ship. So why would a brand new Heavy Cruiser be scrapped just 7 years later? Remember it was set to be scrapped before they knew of the Kitomer Accords, so Starfleet was phasing out the entire fleet, but it makes no sense to build a new one to phase it out 7 years later.

Also arguing the class was old, the Excelscrior class was launched in 2285 and served upto 2380 we know, thats 95 years, Miridina class's we saw as easly as 2285 but given Reliant's status and the mission ect you can speculate the class was introduced in the late 2270's at the latest, putting that class at 100 years or older and still in fleet duties. OBerth no clue but at least 100 years given we saw Grissiom meaning Oberth was launched earlier than that. But the Consitition was scrapped after 53 years, it doesnt make sense for Starfleet to do that given there use of other ships for far longer. USS Hattaway was commisioned in 2285 according to her plaque though the Constelation was still undergoing cirtifications in 2293 but that puts that class also at 90 years in service, as last time we saw them was in DS9, so 2375, it doesnt fit to retire the consitition or it doesnt fit to keep these 23rd century ships working into the late 24th, you decide.


As for the argument just the A was retired, it was 7 years out of refit or construction no one was very clear on this ever from Star Trek we get two seperate histroyies one was she is Yorktown and one she was an a ship awaiting commission, but either way if they retire a ship that was refit and from what we can tell in STV almost totally rebuilt again with massive systems upgrades given the Warp Cores and decks dont match the Original Enterprise, refit it would have been another extensive enteral refit so why retire it?

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2009, 10:03:37 pm »
The major plot of Star Trek 6 revolved around disarmament talks with the Klingons.  This would have restricted the number of constitution class ships available, and a ship which just received major battle damage like the A would have been first on the cutting block.  As for the point I made about the ships being old, you misread my post.  I stated that it is possible that instead of building new Constitution class ships that the federation was building Excelsiors instead.  The Excelsiors, Oberths, and Mirandas which appeared in TNG were not the same ships which appeared in the movies, but were built later.  If Excelsiors replaced constitutions in production, than as older ships retired, they would have been replaced with Excelsiors.  As for the point I made about the Oberths and Mirandas being more efficient in their roles, they were specifically built for different jobs than the constitution class.  The Oberths were designed as science vessels.  While we didn't get a tour of the Grissom, it was probably better equipped for scientific survey than the Enterprise was.  Also, a Constitution class starship circa 2293 had a crew of 300.  Oberths presumably had a smaller crew requirement.  Likewise, the Miranda class ships were probably also more efficient in their role than a Constitution class would have been.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2009, 10:40:36 pm »
except kirk makes the comment they are 3 weeks from retirement and the enterprise is to be mothballed with them. This is before the battle of Kitomier before they even meet Gorkon

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2009, 10:47:24 pm »
except kirk makes the comment they are 3 weeks from retirement and the enterprise is to be mothballed with them. This is before the battle of Kitomier before they even meet Gorkon

Kirk didn't make any reference to the ship being retired, only the command crew.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2009, 11:14:05 pm »
Quote
In 2293, the Enterprise-A was due to be retired along with most of her command crew.


take from here
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-A%29

and we all know Memory Alpha only deals with excat cannon seen and heard on screen

not to mention EnterpriseB was already being built at the time, she lauched later that year. But to top it off during the domionion war, Starfleet despretly short of ships does not recall any consititions into service, we know the EnterpriseA was mothballed, and she could have been reactivated, I doubt they would scrap her it would go against starfleets love of making famous ships into functional museme ships. Yet we never see a single Consitition in the fleet, and you may say the last refit was 100 years before the dominion war, that doesnt mean they couldn't have used it as a troop transport, without a full crew and given the max capicity is about 800 I belive it could have easily fit that role for a light troop transport, yet none of the mothball fleet was recalled. Then again they still have yet to explain why the engineering section of the Enterprise was at Wolf 359 yet either. They used the blown up model they made for ST III and put it in the debris field, but the markings on the hull, blast patter, and even the starfleet emblem all point to the NCC-1701 yet no one yet has told me why they had the engineering hull at wolf 359

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2009, 11:50:46 pm »
Quote
In 2293, the Enterprise-A was due to be retired along with most of her command crew.


take from here
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-A%29

and we all know Memory Alpha only deals with excat cannon seen and heard on screen

not to mention EnterpriseB was already being built at the time, she lauched later that year. But to top it off during the domionion war, Starfleet despretly short of ships does not recall any consititions into service, we know the EnterpriseA was mothballed, and she could have been reactivated, I doubt they would scrap her it would go against starfleets love of making famous ships into functional museme ships. Yet we never see a single Consitition in the fleet, and you may say the last refit was 100 years before the dominion war, that doesnt mean they couldn't have used it as a troop transport, without a full crew and given the max capicity is about 800 I belive it could have easily fit that role for a light troop transport, yet none of the mothball fleet was recalled. Then again they still have yet to explain why the engineering section of the Enterprise was at Wolf 359 yet either. They used the blown up model they made for ST III and put it in the debris field, but the markings on the hull, blast patter, and even the starfleet emblem all point to the NCC-1701 yet no one yet has told me why they had the engineering hull at wolf 359


1. Memory Alpha is a wiki, its not 100% reliable
2. There was no reference to the Enterprise being retired until the very end of the film which is odd if the ship was "due to be retired"
3. The B could have been named Enterprise while under construction
4. It is possible there may have been a few Constitutions in service in the TNG era as it was never confirmed in canon that the class had been entirely retired.
5. As I stated earlier, one of the reasons that the class was not shown in the TNG era was a production decision made early during TNGs run when there was concern about making sure the new series could develop its own identity.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2009, 12:42:28 am »
yes the writers wrote it off, but without giving a valid reason in cannon for doing so.

Offline Kreeargh

  • Retired.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1476
  • Gender: Male
  • Life is as is worth only what you learn from it!
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2009, 03:44:47 am »
In 2286 there were only 2 or 3 Constitution class TOS ships still in service, my guess there was only 1 "active" starfleet front line vessle and it got the refit due to kirk and the crews request. My guess the few cony designs that were left  other than enterprise ended up in the starfleet Smithonian, or got transferd to tug duty.
Time for life!

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2009, 05:20:12 am »
yes the writers wrote it off, but without giving a valid reason in cannon for doing so.

They never explicitly stated that there were no constitution class ships in service during the TNG era, so they din't have to give a reason for not showing one.

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2009, 09:04:10 am »
In 2286 there were only 2 or 3 Constitution class TOS ships still in service, my guess there was only 1 "active" starfleet front line vessle and it got the refit due to kirk and the crews request. My guess the few cony designs that were left  other than enterprise ended up in the starfleet Smithonian, or got transferd to tug duty.

then explain the fleet charts that Colonel West showed the president, there was a few connies on there

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2009, 09:14:04 am »
This is the part I don't get...


The head of Starfleet said in ST3 that the Enterprise was twenty years old and was to be decommissioned, this just after a major overhaul a few years earlier. Kirk and Co. then stole it and blew it up (saving Starfleet the trouble of dismantling it) and were gone few a few months (possibly up to eighteen) on Vulcan. In that time Starfleet managed to forgive Kirk, sequester a fleetdock, find resources and staff and build and exact replica (Enterprise A) of a thirty five year old (or more?) design that they were planning to retire anyway, all so they could decommission it a few years later.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2009, 09:22:53 am »
This is the part I don't get...


The head of Starfleet said in ST3 that the Enterprise was twenty years old and was to be decommissioned, this just after a major overhaul a few years earlier. Kirk and Co. then stole it and blew it up (saving Starfleet the trouble of dismantling it) and were gone few a few months (possibly up to eighteen) on Vulcan. In that time Starfleet managed to forgive Kirk, sequester a fleetdock, find resources and staff and build and exact replica (Enterprise A) of a thirty five year old (or more?) design that they were planning to retire anyway, all so they could decommission it a few years later.

Well, the Enterprise being 20 years old was a scripting error as it violated both previous and subsequent cannon.  I think the decision to retire her in ST3 was more about the physical age of the ship combined with subsequent battle damage.  From what I have As for the A, the explanation given in both the TNG technical manual as well as interviews with the STIV staff was that the A was a recently built Constitution class that had its name changed.  Also, it wasn't an exact replica, as pointed out in STV, its internal layout was different.  A more important reason for the events of 3 was that the ILM crew hated working with the Enterprise model, so they planned to dump it in favor of the Excelsior which had been designed to be easier to film.  The idea was leaked, and proved unpopular with fans, so they dropped it in favor of another Constitution. 

Offline candle_86

  • The Old School
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Gender: Male
  • Position Gamma Hydra sector 10
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2009, 09:35:11 am »
This is the part I don't get...


The head of Starfleet said in ST3 that the Enterprise was twenty years old and was to be decommissioned, this just after a major overhaul a few years earlier. Kirk and Co. then stole it and blew it up (saving Starfleet the trouble of dismantling it) and were gone few a few months (possibly up to eighteen) on Vulcan. In that time Starfleet managed to forgive Kirk, sequester a fleetdock, find resources and staff and build and exact replica (Enterprise A) of a thirty five year old (or more?) design that they were planning to retire anyway, all so they could decommission it a few years later.

battle damage, engineering was a mess, the photon topedo launcher was a mess, the computer was damaged, massive structual damage to the entire ship.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13067
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2009, 09:42:31 am »
The plans to scrap the Enterprise could easily have been connected with the earlier upgrade. 

Assuming it was the first prototype for an upgraded design then design flaws might have shown in the actual use of the ship that were not seen earlier.  Design flaws that were impractical (or too expensive) to retroactively fix but which could be done in a subsequent model (1701A for example) or later upgrades.  Design flaws that might well cause the ship to under perform or to be extremely vulnerable to failures in combat.

Thus it is possible to justify the scraping decision.  Admittedly I don't recall any reason beyond age (and a faulty age based on the Pike Captaincy) being given.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2009, 09:45:58 am »
This is the part I don't get...


The head of Starfleet said in ST3 that the Enterprise was twenty years old and was to be decommissioned, this just after a major overhaul a few years earlier. Kirk and Co. then stole it and blew it up (saving Starfleet the trouble of dismantling it) and were gone few a few months (possibly up to eighteen) on Vulcan. In that time Starfleet managed to forgive Kirk, sequester a fleetdock, find resources and staff and build and exact replica (Enterprise A) of a thirty five year old (or more?) design that they were planning to retire anyway, all so they could decommission it a few years later.

battle damage, engineering was a mess, the photon topedo launcher was a mess, the computer was damaged, massive structual damage to the entire ship.


Yes, I understand why they wanted to scrap the old ship. I don't understand why they went backwards just to placate an old warhorse.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2009, 10:21:39 am »

Yes, I understand why they wanted to scrap the old ship. I don't understand why they went backwards just to placate an old warhorse.

The A wasn't a backwards design.  It also wasn't built to "placate an old war horse" It had recently been built under a different name and was state of the art.  The only ship more advanced was the Excelsior.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 01:45:48 pm by knightstorm »

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: this has bugged me for years
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2009, 10:34:36 am »
Advanced? Funny, I remember it being a POS and Scotty saying as much. I guess I'll have to suffer through ST5 again to find out.