FANDOM


(Misplaced information)
(Misplaced information)
Line 95: Line 95:
 
:It's a nitpick...described as an "oddity", by who? It shouldn't be anywhere at all. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:It's a nitpick...described as an "oddity", by who? It shouldn't be anywhere at all. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::Maybe it could be better worded, but it's more of an observation, IMO given the speed to distance to travel times the rest of the franchise has given to move just a few light years/sectors/systems/whatever. --[[User:Terran Officer|Terran Officer]] 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::Maybe it could be better worded, but it's more of an observation, IMO given the speed to distance to travel times the rest of the franchise has given to move just a few light years/sectors/systems/whatever. --[[User:Terran Officer|Terran Officer]] 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  +
:::''"more of an observation"''... more than what? More an observation than a nitpick? The observation '''is''' the nitpick. Wording it differently won't make it something else. --[[User:TribbleFurSuit|TribbleFurSuit]] 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:00, February 17, 2009

Interior Design

I added the information about the original refitted Enterprise here also, assuming both vessels were quite identical from the inside. Otherwise, things would get rather complicated, as most of this interior information should be moved to the USS Enterprise page then... Ottens 18:20, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST)

You should remove all references before Star Trek IV, for a start. The vessels were not identical internally - Main Engineering was different, as was sickbay, we never saw a Rec Deck on the E-A. This is mostly incorrect information that needs to be fixed, especially the pictures. -- Michael Warren 13:00, 8 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Well, that should be moved back to the original Enterprise page then. Ottens 23:32, 8 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Disputes over Enterprise-A/Yorktown

Somehow, people still dispute wether the Enterprise-A was a recommissionned Yorktown. However, it strikes me that, how can it not be?!

First off, it was launched immediately after the destruction of the first Enterprise. I know that this is not impossible, just improbable.

Secondly, the Yorktown was seen in the movie preceeding the one where E-A debuted. It was also seen getting heavily damaged, and it's crew most likely killed. This would result in a refit (normally a reconstruction, but Constitution's were being overhauled during this time) and a reenlistment of crew.

Thirdly, the E-A was decommissioned after seven years. Seven years! A ship being decommissioned after only seven years of service (and not taking irreperable damage) is extremely unlikely. If it were true, it would be--by far--the shortest lived Starfleet ship that wasn't destroyed at the end of its career.

Finally, and most importantly, Gene Roddenberry said it was a recommissioned Yorktown. Think about that for a second. Gene Roddenberry said it. If you were a devout Christian, would you say "Hmm... You know, I don't agree with the Third Commandment. I'm just going to ignore it and pretend it was never wrote. God is wrong when it comes to the Third Commandment" (Note: I have no idea what the Third Commandment says). No, you wouldn't. When it comes to Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry is God. His word is infallable. Proving him wrong would unmake Star Trek. If he says that the Klingons evolved from living cuddly pink teddy bears biologically engineered on a planet called Tatooine a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, travelled back in time and through space to Qo'noS where they evolved into the warrior race we all know and love, then... I don't think I need to repeat myself. It's unfortunate that he passed, so now what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga goes. But go ahead and argue with them, though personally, I like what they've done.

Zeromaru... 6:40PM EST 2005-2-16

If it's not on screen, it ain't canon. And I'm not sure Gene's word has any particular relevance here, considering he was not involved in the movies by that point.
I don't have any problem with the E-A being a recommissioned ship, though I don't like the choice of the Yorktown because the ship did not seem that bad off in ST IV. Wasn't there a technical manual or something that said it was originally the Ti-Ho? -- Steve 22:48, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I've rewritten the USS Yorktown article to take an appropriate neutral tone regarding the matter -- it's something thats open to a lot of interpretation, especially since most people assume that to TOS Yorktown and the Movie Yorktown are the same vessel, when its equally as possible a ship from the 2270s named Yorktown was renamed, rather than a brand new one or an extremely old one.
Regardless of all this though, this does all belong in background notes here -- because the shows and movies have never addressed it specifically, we aren't allowed to pass these speculations as fact by placing them declaratively in the primary article space or lists. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:59, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Along those same lines, supposedly Gene also said that he didn't like Trek V and Trek VI and wanted them excised from canon. Should we therefore remove all information pertaining to those movies from MA?
Although it is likely that the Enterprise-A was a renamed ship, it could've been named virtually anything beforehand, as Steve pointed out. -- SmokeDetector47 07:37, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Well, there is the theory that the campfire "life is but a dream" in the opening and ending are meant to signal the beginning and end of a dream sequence. However, at least they made it on film. Roddenberry's comments didn't. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT)
If it was Yorktown, it might explain how it was that Starfleet could've accidentally allowed one of its ships to be in such bad condition, as conceivable electronic and/or other systems' damage from the Probe might not have been realized at the time the ship left at the end of IV. --ChrisK 05:56, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
According to VOY: "Flashback", Tuvok's father was serving aboard the Yorktown in 2293, the same year the Enterprise-A was flying about. Assuming Tuvok was correct this proves the Yorktown is not the E-A.
...or that another Yorktown had been launched in the seven years that had passed since the Enterprise-A was launched. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
'"First off, it was launched immediately after the destruction of the first Enterprise. I know that this is not impossible, just improbable."' - All that means is that the ship was being built when the decision to decommission the Enterprise came down the pike. In real world navies ship names aren't set in stone until they're commissioned. So this Connie was being built, probably with the intention of calling it something else, and when the Enterprise was set for decommissioning (or when it was destroyed) Starfleet decided to name the new ship in its honor. The problem still exists for why it was decommissioned and retired from service so quickly, but that problem arises from the 1701-B being launched in Generations since the end of STVI gives the impression that the 1701-A was to be passed onto another crew (or at least that's what I took Kirk's last log entry to mean when I first saw the film. -- General Grant 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there already was a new ship about to be launched(which was not Yorktown), and starfleet just quickly renamed it Enterpise fro Kirk. As for the Enterprise-A being retired so quickly I don't see any problem. The Klingon-Federation Cold War ended and there was no longer any need for the Enterprise-A - similar thing happened in real life durung the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War. For example the heavey battlecruiser USS Alaska was retired in 1947 only after less than 4 years of service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_%28CB-1%29 why? because the Alaska, just like the Enterprise, was no longer needed. – Starzaz 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise A Decommissioning

I don't recall it being said that the Enterprise-A would be decommissioned before the end of Star Trek VI. I know at least Scotty was retiring. Regardless, I think it could be safely conjectured that the Enterprise-A's constant bugs, beginning with the shakedown cruise, might have been the reason for its decommissioning. --Kitch 13:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, In fact, Kirk said at the end of "The Undisovered Country" that "This ship, and her legacy will shortly become the care of another crew". This means that only the crew was being decomissioned, not the ship.

And even if it did refer to the ship being decommissioned this need not mean it was to be retired permanently or scrapped. Often navel vessels are decommissioned before major overhauls and then recommissioned. Or decommissioned and put in mothballs until needed again (which is what Scotty implies happened to the 1701-A when he is revived in Relics (of course, he also thought Kirk was alive too...) -- General Grant 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it had more to do with the removal of the Klingons as a threat, leading to the decomisioning of what could be percieved as a warship. Simply put, the Enterprise was no longer needed.
But that's totally silly. Did everyone just suddenly forget that there are other potentially hostile aliens besides klingons in the galaxy? Romulans, anyone? Although the ship received pretty bad damage in ST6, with huge holes blown into the hull and all, Kirk's line very much suggests that the ship would go on to serve under another crew; it wasn't until Generations that it'd be established that she'd be decommissioned (with the introduction of Enterprise-B). 84.250.41.125 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Silly? hardly. At the end of the Cold War the United States Navy decomissioned a lot of ships - they went from 588 ships to a little over 300 with in less than a decade despite other foriegn threats such as communist China or a possibe resurgent Russia. Similar thing happened in the Royal Navy.
Also after World War II the navy decomissioned a TON of ships even though the Cold War was really heating up. For example the "large cruiser" USS Alaska and her sister ship USS Guam were commissioned in 1944 then decomissioned in 1947. – Starzaz 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

78 decks

I wouldn't call that an embarrassing error. It seemed pretty intentional and was probably a nod to the 78 TOS episodes (counting the two-parter "The Menagerie" as one episode). --James Cody 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some reason I seem to remember an interview with an art department staffer who worked on Star Trek V and mentioned that Mike Okuda and several members of the production staff tried to reason with William Shatner and explain that Andrew Probert had designed the E-A with only 21 decks and that it didn't fit with established Trek lore to number the decks from the bottom of the ship to the top. He wouldn't listen to them, and considering that it had already been firmly established that the E-D, with 42 decks, was a much larger ship, it was a bad call. At any rate, I do think it is somewhat embarrassing that the trio seem to pass the same decks a few times and that the decks don't seem to be numbered in any particular chronological order. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a theory that all Star Trek ships are fitted with a dynamic number of decks, and dialogue triggers more or fewer decks to be manifested to fit canon. Picard's dialogue in Star Trek: First Contact is a perfect example.66.141.185.209 14:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wolf 359

Some may have noticed the Constitution-class refit destroyed at the battle of Wolf 359. Since the constitution-class had been abandon decades prior (probably with the Enterprise-A's retirement), this must have been a mothballed ship, probably a trainer, pressed in to service out of desperation.

For the ship to have lasted to this point, it must have been a famous ship with a great liniage. Let me also mention here that we have no direct evidence of any constitution-class refit other than the Enterprise-A at the time of it's retirement.

So then, I submit to you: Could this have been the last flight of the Enterprise-A? --<unsigned>

An interesting notion, no doubt. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. At least two Refits were visible in Earth Spaedock during The Voyage Home movie. And besides, she was pretty buggered up by those Klingon torpedoes during the battle over Khitomer. Nevertheless, there is no solid reason why it couldn't be the Enterprise-A. It's worth looking into. --CaptainCaca 18:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, there is no canon evidence to support this. --Alan del Beccio 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the bottomless pit at on the lowest level of E-E

Sequencing

Wouldn't this techically be the third ship to carry the name "Enterprise", if you count the Enterprise NX-01? The article for the NCC-1701 also says it is the first to carry the name. Are you not counting pre-federation vessels? --141.157.14.187 13:32, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The article says the Enterprise-A is the second Federation starship to bear the name. The NX-01 was not affiliated with the Federation (since it had not yet been founded) nor was it officially designated as a starship (its dedication plaque designates it as a "spacecraft"). From another point, you can look at it as being the second ship to carry the full name U.S.S. Enterprise. In any case, when saying a ship is the first, second, third, etc. Federation starship to bear a name, we're not counting pre-Federation ships. --From Andoria with Love 22:06, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Only Two Bridges Used

The bridge in Star Trek 6 was the same bridge used in Star Trek 5, except for a few additions and a different paint/decoration scheme.

"In universe" that would make them two different bridges, as those "decorations" represent different control systems between the two versions.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

from Forum:I have a question about the Enterprise-A section.

Moved from Forum:I have a question about the Enterprise-A section.:

For the section of the Enterprise-A, the third image of the bridge of the Enterprise just says "Main Bridge". To be honest, it has been bugging me for a little while now. It it okay with you guys if I just change it to "Enterprise-A Bridge in 2293"? -- Constable Odo 10:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Better suited to the article's talk page than a forum post... and the captions are better shortened, since we know the ship's name. And I've done that now. -- Sulfur 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced information

I don't think this note should be on this page.

Another oddity in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is the Enterprise's trip to the center of the galaxy, which should have taken many years but seemed to occur in less than a day. In the novelization of Star Trek V, it is mentioned that Sybok's tinkering allows them to decrease their travel time. The Bird-of-Prey scans the Enterprise during their pursuit and is able to duplicate their rate of travel.

It has less to do with the Enterprise-A than it does with Star Trek V. I suggest moving it that page. Objections? Comments?Twilder 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a nitpick...described as an "oddity", by who? It shouldn't be anywhere at all. --Alan 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it could be better worded, but it's more of an observation, IMO given the speed to distance to travel times the rest of the franchise has given to move just a few light years/sectors/systems/whatever. --Terran Officer 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"more of an observation"... more than what? More an observation than a nitpick? The observation is the nitpick. Wording it differently won't make it something else. --TribbleFurSuit 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.