Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I swear to God, people on the Web fit way too many Shrek references into topics that have nothing to do with him.
Star Trek The General Star Trek Thread - From TOS to Corporate Schenanigans
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star trek
I swear to God, people on the Web fit way too many Shrek references into topics that have nothing to do with him.
Typhonis
Well-known member
Given it's what at least 20 years later? She may have been retired from service after an accident of some sort.
My guess....Captain Riker happened to her.
I'm personally hoping they just retired the ship due to wear and tear.
It's so fucking tiring to lose Enterprises in battle. (Also, since Worf might've been the last captain of the E, it'd be shitting on him if it was lost on his watch.)
My guess....Captain Riker happened to her.
Well given the History we know about the E. It has had a long hard time of service. It has taken more battle damage than any Enterprise since the NCC 1701. It fought the Borg, The Solan, The Scimitar, And the Narada. Each time it took some hits. Most Starfleet ships don't get into that many scraps. So the Spaceframe might have been used up in just 3 decades.
I noted elsewhere the hull time for the various Enterprises, I'll repost here:
NCC-1701 (Constitution/Constitution Refit): 2245 - 2285 = 40 Years
NCC-1701-A (Constitution Refit): 2286 - 2293 = 7 Years
NCC-1701-B (Excelsior): 2293 - 2337 = 44 Years
NCC-1701-C (Ambassador): 2337 - 2344 = 7 Years
NCC-1701-D (Galaxy): 2363 - 2371 = 8 Years
Going on this, the average hull time for an Enterprise is ~21 years, so Enterprise-E actually managing to make 3 decades puts her a bit above the average time. Considering, as you said, she got into more scrapes than anyone save the Old Connie, that's a pretty good run, exceeding only the Old Connie Enterprise herself and the silent hero Enterprise-B, who was built on the Federation's historically most successful spaceframe: the Excelsior-class.
Indeed she had a very good run. Better than the C and the D did.
The A was a lot older. I believe she was a existing Constitution that was renamed Enterprise.
She was, the original list was for "number of years serving as the Enterprise", and that hull only had the name for seven years, prior to that she was USS Yorktown.
I have that ship on STO.
Me too and it is indeed a beast.
When talking about how long before a ship is retired that makes her a deeply misleading data point.
We can also add the All Good Things timeline for the E-D at 32 years (presumably destroyed by the anti-time anomoly or the timeline ending with it) and the NX-01 at 10 years. Since AFAIK we don't know the USS Yorktown's service life we can't gauge the E-A's service life so have to discard her. Of the others, the E-null was scheduled for retirement after 40 years but stolen and lost and the E-B actually retired leaving us with only 3 data points for retirement age. The NX-01 appears to have been retired extremely early because it was a single tech base ship and new ships produced with the combined Human/Vulcan/Andorian/Tellarite tech base could plausibly be vastly superior in ways that couldn't be bridged by refits. The other two retired or were scheduled to be retired after 40 or more years.
We can't add the All Good Things timeline at all, that's nonsense. That timeline was specifically created by the Q as part of the test, and has absolutely nothing in common with the Prime Timeline so it gives no indication of the success of the Galaxy frame as the Q specifically ensured that the things would line up for allowing Picard a chance at passing the test.
And aside, the chart I posted was specifically the time a hull held the name Enterprise for. I can acknowledge that Ent-A was an unusual situation though, she was recommissioned as Enterprise specifically as a reward for Kirk saving earth, using the spaceframe that he was most familiar with and favored, but was clearly at the end of it's lifecycle (the Excelsior-class was undergoing trials in Star Trek III, and it was clearly meant as the replacement frame for the Constitution-class), which we can then see play out in how Enterprise performed vs how Excelsior performed in the Battle over Khitomer and the fact that Enterprise-A was decommissioned and replaced with an Excelsior class shortly after the events of Star Trek VI.
The Constitution and Excelsior class ships are probably two of the most successful space frames the Federation ever produced when it came to Heavy Cruisers. Likewise the Miranda is far and away their most successful Light Cruiser frame. The Ambassador clearly was a failed attempt at a new Heavy Cruiser, seeing how few Ambassadors we ever see through the series compared to Excelsiors. The Galaxy class perhaps had a more successful run, but it has a lot of flaws and clearly was replaced as the flag line ship with the Sovereign-class in a much shorter window than the other hulls served as the lead frame for.
Being set up to allow Picard a chance to pass the test doesn't indicate it isn't a valid timeline because there's no special relationship between the times of the technobabble pulses. Q could have picked any future point at which the E-D was still in commission if its natural lifetime was shorter, but the known retirement dates and the continued presence of Miranda and Excelsior class vessels indicates that Starfleet builds ships with an expected lifetime of at least forty years.
That would be an excuse if it really was a chart linked as media, but it's text you copied into your post and nothing prevented you from editing out the entry that is misleading for the discussion you're responding to.
You do know I wrote up that chart myself? You're functionally accusing me of lying about the reason for the chart's very existence. I didn't copy it from any other website. I originally posted it here, where the purpose was to use the length of service of a hull as the Enterprise to showcase how the Galaxy and Ambassador classes were failed designs, expressly in comparison to the Constitution and Excelsior classes.
And the "All Good Things" timeline seriously cannot be rationalized to showcase that the Galaxy wasn't a failed design in the Prime Universe. By definition that is a different universe rather than the Prime timeline since we know for a fact the Enterprise-D was destroyed and replaced, with the general Galaxy class's role as primary frontline cruiser being replaced by the Sovereign in the late 24th century and now by the Odyssey in the early 25th, seeing how Odyssey-class Enterprise-F is now canon. In short, in the Prime timeline of Trek, the Galaxy is a failed hull design that was replaced by Starfleet... that in some other timeline where the Federation had some very different circumstances (bear in mind, the refit Enterprise-D had a CLOAKING DEVICE as well as a considerable hull refit, it was a very different ship than the Galaxy in the Prime timeline) doesn't show anything other than... in a very different set of circumstances that don't exist in Trek as we know it the Galaxy might not have been a failed design... But those circumstances are not what we know, and we don't actually know what the exact circumstances WERE that LED to that timeline to begin with, as the point of departure has to be before Generation to ensure the Enterprise-D actually even survives.
That doesn't change things at all unless you're somehow magically incapable of altering things you have done to fit differing circumstances.
It also makes you a dishonest debater in that you picked one ship name. If you'd picked a different name you'd have gotten different results. There is no evidence that any of the ships named Enterprise are typical of their class. This is like saying that the Miranda is a failed design because USS Reliant was destroyed in the Battle of the Mutaran Nebula.
The closest to typical is the E-B. USS Zhukov is in a ship list on a bridge screen undergoing a refit in 2369 and you don't refit ships you don't expect to get more service out of. USS Excalibur is seen active in 2368 helping Enterprise intercept cloaked ships during the Klingon Civil War demonstrating they're still considered fit for military duties even that late. They just weren't built in large numbers during an arms race like the Excelsiors were. If we assume that the Technical Manual date for USS Galaxy's construction is accurate and that no Ambassadors were commissioned after it this gives a floor of 14 years service life, but USS Zhukov is not being retired and is more likely to be older.
USS Galaxy was in the battle group being assembled to fight the Scimitar in 2379 giving the class a lifetime floor of 22 years if the technical manual date for its commissioning is taken as accurate. The Federation also rush built a lot of them as their best measure against the Dominion.
The AGT timeline is alpha canon and forks from the prime timeline well after the Enterprise was built. It is completely demonstrative of what the Enterprise's fate would likely have been without the divergence AGT itself caused. Picard makes different decisions after his ordeal and his conversations with Q starting with showing up at the officers' poker game for the first time at the end of the episode. Picard is not a small winged butterfly. He has complete control over when he retires and enormous influence over the careers of his crew such as when Riker finally accepts a promotion that takes him to another ship. Who is crewing a ship has great influence over its fate and a ship being lost or not or being in drydock for repairs at any given time or not or just how long it spent on its last mission forces a different arrangement of ship deployments which puts a different ship in position to do any given future mission. This is a textbook chaotic system.
We don't need to know the details of the divergence because the design and construction of the actual spaceframe predates it. It was refit after, but you don't count the Constitution as different when it gets its refit. Considering that it was also visibly refit between Pike's five year mission and Kirk's, it, too, would be a failure by that standard. The AGT E-D refit is minor in comparison to the second known Constitution class refit which changes nearly every dimension of the hull.
If any Enterprise is a design failure it's the E-B, which has a torpedo blister looking think not found on USS Excelsior nor on any of the many surviving Excelsior class vessels seen on screen in the TNG era. That's what failure looks like: a one off not seen again, not dozens of Galaxies winning the Dominion War while the Sovereign is still in development hell.[/QUOTE]