Timeline for Why was there a 20-year gap between Enterprises C and D?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2023 at 20:05 | comment | added | Andrew | " Ships are planned years, sometimes decades in advance, and their names planned along with them. " Ship names sometimes do change during construction. In the 1980s, for example the USS Henry M. Jackson was being built to be the USS Rhode Island en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Henry_M._Jackson | |
| Dec 6, 2021 at 14:59 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @Blaze: Indeed - it may have been something about the balance of "tactfully not reusing the name so as to not make it seem like the crew of the 1701-C can simply be replaced" and "deciding that now we have mourned, and it is time to posthumously honor the crew's sacrifice by continuing the legacy". | |
| Dec 14, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | Blaze | @PlasmaHH I think this is the key element. However, I don't think -C was "lost". The supposition was that a Federation ship dying to defend a Klingon outpost would have a profound effect on galactic politics. When the Federation and Klingons went to hammer down a treaty, the fate of the -C would be almost certainly revealed in a great ceremony of Klingon respect. 20 years of "retiring the name" would be a fine gesture. I'd wager there was some hot debate (between old and new Starfleet personnel) of bringing by "Enterprise" at all when the question came up two decades later. | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 23:52 | history | edited | Michael Scott Shappe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Updated to reflect that CVN-65 is finally decomissioned and construction on CVN-80 finally began.
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 23:58 | comment | added | Michael Scott Shappe | My point is that the ship that became NCC-1701-B was actually, or so I believe, SUPPOSED to be eventually NCC-1701-A. NCC-1701 would have been decommissioned and there would have been a gap without an Enterprise. The events of ST3 and ST4 changed that and, as you say, they slapped the name on a new or recently refit ship, and the Excelsior-class ship wound up becoming NCC-1701-B. | |
| Feb 3, 2016 at 14:40 | comment | added | T.J.L. | I'm not so sure on Point 1... specifically the part about 1701-A already being in the works. Kirk was an Admiral at that point; there wasn't a line captain with an emotional attachment to the ship. It was destroyed in ST3, then Kirk saved the whole damned planet from Humanity's own destructive nature in ST4. At the end of ST4, Kirk is demoted and granted a new command. They slapped the name on a fresh ship to honor him (and possibly to diplomatically snub the Klingons) at that point. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 9:23 | comment | added | PlasmaHH | Also the C was lost, and no one really knew if they would maybe come back, so waiting a while is a nice thing to do. | |
| Jan 28, 2015 at 22:26 | vote | accept | Praxis | ||
| Jan 28, 2015 at 19:26 | comment | added | Schwern | The real USS Enterprises are a good example, CV-6 made the name famous in WWII, yet there have been decade long gaps between commissioned ships with the name. Also, while capital ships are laid down with a name in mind, they can be renamed in the event of a sudden death of a high ranking official or loss of ship. For example, CV-10 was originally to be called Bon Homme Richard but the loss of USS Yorktown (CV-5) lead to a renaming. | |
| Jan 28, 2015 at 18:41 | comment | added | Himarm | i believe we had a quote a week or so on the site where some one showed that the enterprise E was originally going to be another ship, and that they purposely renamed the ship to have a current enterprise for picard. | |
| Jan 28, 2015 at 17:56 | history | edited | Michael Scott Shappe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a theory about NCC-1701-B to fully cover the question.
|
| Jan 28, 2015 at 17:35 | history | edited | Michael Scott Shappe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2015 at 17:15 | history | answered | Michael Scott Shappe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |