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.
Given it's what at least 20 years later? She may have been retired from service after an accident of some sort.What happened to the last one?
My guess....Captain Riker happened to her.What happened to the last one?
What happened to the last one?
I'm personally hoping they just retired the ship due to wear and tear.Given it's what at least 20 years later? She may have been retired from service after an accident of some sort.
What happened to the last one?
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.
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'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.)
I noted elsewhere the hull time for the various Enterprises, I'll repost here: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.
Indeed she had a very good run. Better than the C and the D did.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.
The A was a lot older. I believe she was a existing Constitution that was renamed Enterprise.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.
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.The A was a lot older. I believe she was a existing Constitution that was renamed Enterprise.
More info on the Enterprise F.
Me too and it is indeed a beast.I have that ship on STO.
When talking about how long before a ship is retired that makes her a deeply misleading data point.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.
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.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.
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.And aside, the chart I posted was specifically the time a hull held the name Enterprise for.
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.