Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: How old was the "Enterprise"? Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Allan Summerall
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 417
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Whenever I watch Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, my curiosity is piqued during the scene where Admiral Morrow tells Kirk that the "Enterprise" is 20 years old and I try to figure out "How?" The movie "Enterprise" was a refit/redesign. Nearly everything was upgraded/replaced (as Captain Decker phrased "An almost totally new Enterprise"). It's been alluded that after "ST:The Motion Picture" the crew embarked on a second 5-Year Mission, but that's not really canon I believe. Now, I understand ST:TMP puts it 2 1/2 years after the original 5-Year Mission but I'm not too clear on how long then between ST:TMP and The Wrath of Khan. Maybe Greg Kirkman or JB,as the resident experts, have an answer?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 4:28pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

That “20 years” comes from the same skewed thinking that has Sulu, in “The Deadly Years” saying he’s served under Kirk for two years.

Based on what we know, the starship had probably been in service about 30 years when we first “came aboard”—probably not coincidentally the same age as the (pre-atomic) aircraft carrier of the same name.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Allan Summerall
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 417
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 6:39pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Thanks JB!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 9:18pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Fact of the matter is that there are only a few chronological touchstones mentioned throughout both TOS and the movies, and some of those are highly contradictory.

The official chronology developed during TNG attempted to provide a coherent timeline, but it’s based on a good number of assumptions and biases, rather than, y’know, TOS itself. As JB is extremely fond of noting, the bulk of the onscreen references place TOS about 200 years in the future, which would be in the late 2100s or so. This is what FASA (and other sources) went with in the early 80s before TNG came along, and an official timeline was locked down. I think that the FASA chronology works much better than the official one. TOS takes place in the late 2100s, with the movies being set during the early 2200s (“In the 23rd Century...”). Unfortunately, Kirk’s specific reference to 2283 in TWOK throws a bit of a wrench into things, but perhaps no more so than the “900 years ago” reference in “The Squire of Gothos”. I still kinda like the idea that “2283” is actually referencing a stardate, rather than a calendar year. 

Anyway, THE MAKING OF STAR TREK specifically states that the Enterprise-type (not yet codified in official lore as Constitution class) ships had been in service for about 40 years at the then-current point in the chronology (during season two of TOS, when TMOST was written). Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Enterprise herself was in service for that long, unless we take into consideration the later lore of NCC-1701 being only the second ship of the class (in contradiction of Matt Jefferies’ idea that she was the LEAD ship of the class—design number 17, production model number 01), which indicates that she would be have launched pretty quickly after the class ship, Constitution

The official chronology currently states that the ship had been in service for 21 years prior to the first season of TOS, with Robert April and Chris Pike each helming two conjectural five-year missions before Kirk took command. However, Spock does state that he served with Pike for 11 years, with the flashback events of “The Menagerie” taking place 13 years prior to the Kirk-era portions of that two-partner.

Sulu’s reference to having served with Kirk for two years was surely written with the notion that each season of TOS represented a year of in-universe time, which is flawed. And Admrial Morrow’s assertion that the Enterprise was 20 years old in THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK is just plain wrong, and was perhaps designed to not confuse the general audience, since STAR TREK itself was nearly 20 years old at that time. Or perhaps it was a legitimate error, and Harve Bennett had simply forgotten about “The Menagerie”.

It’s been suggested that Morrow was referring to the “almost totally new” Enterprise from THE MOTION PICTURE as being 20 years old by that time, but that doesn’t work, either. After all, THE WRATH OF KHAN is explicitly said—numerous times—to take place only 15 years after “Space Seed”. The gap between the first two movies has also been artificially extended by the official timeline (with a conjectural five-year mission helmed by Kirk snuck in-between TMP and TWOK, and TWOK taking place 18 years after “Space Seed”), but it seems likely that the original intent was for there to be a gap of merely 2-3 years, just as in real time. Not that they were thinking too much about TMP when they were making TWOK, of course.


In summation, the STAR TREK chronology in any form is pretty much FUBAR, but it’s not actually important except to people like us. There’s a reason why Roddenberry and company deliberately avoided specificity in TOS regarding the time period. To repeat my usual mantra, it’s the stories and the characters that are actually important, and which should be the focus. It’s fun to try and weave disparate elements into a cohensive whole, but it certainly shouldn’t affect one’s enjoyment of the stories.

Personally, I love the fact that the Enterprise was a ship with a long history. So many new stories to be told, with so many crewmen we haven’t even met, yet. “The Cage” is pretty much the only TREK pilot to introduce the hero starship in media res, with Roddenberry taking pains to hint at a history for the ship and crew. Right down to the “space weathering” on the Enterprise visual effects model.

All of the other shows (and the first and eleventh movies) were “origin stories” which featured brand-new ships and brand-new crews coming together for the first time. Well, except maybe STD. But I don’t give enough of a **** to look up whether or not the titular ship was launched in its first appearance. 


Edited by Greg Kirkman on 31 October 2018 at 9:14pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2639
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 9:33pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I can easily be wrong, but I thought the Enterprise's commission date was on the commemorative plaque on the bridge.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 9:40pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

The original Enterprise’s dedication plaque was very simple. I have a resin copy of it on my wall!


U.S.S. ENTERPRISE

STARSHIP CLASS

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.


It wasn’t until TNG that we started getting plaques with lots of detail, including commissioning dates.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 30 October 2018 at 9:52pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Not until the anal fanboys took over........
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 1:25am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

You can see how the tail started wagging the dog in TMP. On the one hand, it wasn’t a bad thing that they had scientific consultants and put a lot of thought and design work into the ship’s control consoles and whatnot. Having believable details (something a step beyond consoles with row after row of unlabeled buttons and generic blinking lights) can certainly help with one’s sense of immersion in a fantastic setting.

However, this more detail-oriented attitude quickly led to the sleek and futuristic design aesthetic of TOS being replaced with lots of buttons and knobs and blinky lights. And, by the TNG era, lots and lots of detail being added into things like computer screen displays (complete with in-jokes and sight gags) and dedication plaques.

I’ve really come ‘round to the idea that less is more, and that the simplest designs and concepts are often the best and most memorable ones. It’s a fine line between using realistic details to carefully build a sense of verisimilitude, and obsessively dwelling on minute details which aren’t actually important. Or, worse, which detract from the logical mechanics of an established fictional universe. The increasingly-clunkier ships of the TREK franchise look progressively less futuristic, not more. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 25582
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 4:44am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

So, there’s only two years between the end of TOS’s five year mission and TMP? I have long imagined there being a bigger gap between them. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 7:12am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

So, there’s only two years between the end of TOS’s five year mission and TMP?

••

Or five, according to some--with the ship having completed only ONE five year mission with Kirk's crew.

A lot of opportunities were missed in the TOS movies, not the least of which establishing longer lifespans for the characters. Shatner's fiftieth birthday becomes Kirk's fiftieth birthday, instead of, say one hundredth (or more).

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 9:26am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Roddenberry and company deliberately compressed the timeline so as to have less of a gap in-between TOS and TMP. Ten years had passed in real life, but the film makes mention that it had been 2 1/2 years since Kirk commanded the Enterprise, with 18 months of that devoted to the Enterprise redesign. Kirk also explicitly mentions that he spent “five years out there”, thus squashing the possibility of a second five-year mission in-between the series and the movie. I have the feeling that they didn’t want to give the sense that the characters had a bunch of adventures which we never got to see, or that they went on another mission which went entirely unseen.

This time-compression is the reason why the official timeline had to artificially lengthen the gap between TMP and TWOK. TMP was released ten years after TOS, but the movie pretended it was only 2 1/2 years. TWOK was released three years after TMP, but the official chronology puts 14 years in-between those films. And, of course, the constant references to “Space Seed” having taken place 15 years prior to TWOK is a reference to the real-time gap between the episode and the film.


Edited by Greg Kirkman on 31 October 2018 at 10:14am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 10:11am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Well, we now know they went on a whole bunch of previously unseen exploits! ;)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 10:15am | IP Logged | 13 post reply

Yes, indeed!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Allan Summerall
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 417
Posted: 31 October 2018 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | 14 post reply

Thanks Greg! I knew I could count on you and JB to help out :)
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Sam Karns
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7565
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 11:10am | IP Logged | 15 post reply

How many years do you assume Pike was in command of the Enterprise when we first saw him in The Cage, Mr. Byrne?
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 11:22am | IP Logged | 16 post reply

Spock served under Pike for 11 years, and "The Menagerie" takes place 13 years ago. So Spock was new to the ship then (ignoring the idiots who want him ping-ponging all over Star Fleet so he can have served with Kirk and Gary Mitchell without the Enterprise being Kirk's first command), but it did not seem like Pike was.

Of course, there's a problem in the fact that Roddenberry did not write the first pilot with the intention of it serving as a flashback. It was written in "current time", as was "Where No Man has Gone Before". But based on internal evidence, I'd guess Pike (and several members of his crew, other than Spock) had been aboard for a while when we first "met" them.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3088
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 3:04pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply

Spock served under Pike for 11 years, and "The Menagerie" takes place 13 years ago.
------------------------------------------------
So, if Spock was new then, does that mean that Kirk had been in command of the Enterprise for two years when TOS started, and therefore we saw years 3-5 of the 5 year mission?  Or am I doing the math wrong somewhere?
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 113373
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 7:02pm | IP Logged | 18 post reply

If we assume Spock’s time on the ship to be contiguous—and there is absolutely no reason not to—then it all comes down to how his 11 years with Pike overlays that “13 years ago”. If he had a couple of years before Talos IV, then there woul be nine after, and that would give us 4 with Kirk. The less time before Talos, the less with Kirk.

Of course, an important factor is Kirk’s age. Thirty-four in the second season, which would make him around 30 when he became commander of the Enterprise. There are, however, a lot of people who want to ignore Roddenberry’s obvious intent, and make some other, previous ship Kirk’s first command. Which starts to skew the time frame of Kirk, Spock and Mitchell serving “for years” on the same ship.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 8:20pm | IP Logged | 19 post reply

Of course, an important factor is Kirk’s age. Thirty-four in the second season, which would make him around 30 when he became commander of the Enterprise. There are, however, a lot of people who want to ignore Roddenberry’s obvious intent, and make some other, previous ship Kirk’s first command. Which starts to skew the time frame of Kirk, Spock and Mitchell serving “for years” on the same ship.
++++++++++++

It should be noted that Kirk's bio in THE MAKING OF STAR TREK specifically states that he had previously commanded a small cruiser prior to the Enterprise.

The question is, who/when did that particular factoid come from?

We don't know for sure who wrote the line in WNMHGB about Kirk's first command. Sam Peeples? Roddenberry doing one of his uncredited rewrites? It certainly makes the most sense that Dr. Dehner is referring to the Enterprise, but the offscreen backstory which was later mentioned in TMOST may well have been in play, even at that early stage.

In terms of concrete, onscreen canon, the reasonable assumption--especially given that Kirk treats the Enterprise like a "first love"--is that Dehner is referring to the Enterprise.


Meanwhile, Mendez says in "The Menagerie" that present-day (crippled) Pike is "about (Kirk's) age", which makes no sense. That would mean Pike was in his early 20s during "The Cage", and would also contradict the generally-accepted lore that Kirk was the youngest-ever starship Captain at the time of TOS.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 24 November 2018 at 8:29pm | IP Logged | 20 post reply

...of course, a 20-ish Captain Pike would be right at home in the Abramsverse.

A subtle-yet-important aspect of TOS is that becoming a starship Captain was not an easy task. All of the Captains seen in TOS--aside from Kirk--were older men. Experienced men. And, blatant sexism aside, it was also (unfortunately) established that women didn't even get a crack at the job. That bit of lore should go into the "ignore" pile.

The fact that Kirk was promoted to Captain at such a young age subtly speaks volumes about the character without turning him into a Gary Stu wunderkind. He was clearly established as a by-the-book, hardworking guy.

Of course, the Abramsverse and STD have flushed all of this down the toilet, with 20-ish NuKirk going from cadet to Captain in the span of a few days, and the traitorous and insubordinate Michael Burnham surely in line for the Captain's chair even after mutinously neck-pinching her Captain and disobeying direct orders. Flag officer material, for sure.

Sigh.

Edited by Greg Kirkman on 24 November 2018 at 8:35pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 7886
Posted: 25 November 2018 at 12:20am | IP Logged | 21 post reply

From a certain perspective, we should be glad that we got the original crew and the general sense of professionalism associated with rank that we did for as long as we did. We could easily have wound up with rampant fan-think infesting the franchise long before 2009. 

In a sense we did on TNG where everyone was special with their own set of powers and interesting backstories, but even then, it was downplayed rather than set squarely before us, front and center, as if that is the way things work in this universe. 

As for women not being allowed a shot at the captaincy, I know what Dr. Lester said in "Turnabout Intruder" about Kirk's world of starships not allowing women, but it should be remembered that A.) she was a murderously insane unreliable narrator who blamed everyone else for her problems and B.) as shown in both "The Cage" and "The Menagerie," Number One was the Captain of the Enterprise while Pike was missing. Had he not returned, she would have been the captain at least until Starfleet either decided to bring in someone else or make her posting permanent. 

Kirk's last line in "Turnabout Intruder" is unfortunate in that it seems to back up Lester's statement, "Her life could have been as full as any woman's," thereby suggesting that life still did not present the same opportunities for her that it did for, say, him, but that is not definitive. Number One's issuing orders and taking command in Pike's absence is. 

It well may be that with only twelve empty seats to fill on the starship roster that a woman had not been considered for the position yet, but we only have Lester's word for it that they couldn't be. 

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 7886
Posted: 25 November 2018 at 12:39am | IP Logged | 22 post reply

It should also be noted that Star Trek had no issue with a woman commanding an alien vessel as shown in "The Enterprise Incident." Granted, they didn't show her being very good at it, but to the best of my knowledge, nearly every starship captain but Kirk and Commodore Stone were shown to be somewhat lacking as well. 

Women are also shown to be in command in general as shown in "Catspaw" and "Wink of an Eye." Again, issues of romance and self-control make those depictions somewhat iffy, but you can't say, as fans often do, that Star Trek had an issue with women being in charge and did not allow such things to occur. 

Questions of authority came up a lot on the show, and those possessing it were usually not the best people for the job. Very few leaders on the show escaped without a flaw or two being exposed, Kirk included.


Edited by Brian Hague on 25 November 2018 at 12:41am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 25 November 2018 at 12:47am | IP Logged | 23 post reply

It’s a very strange turnabout (...pun!), that’s for sure. The first pilot established Number One as a highly-competent officer, and most certainly command-track material. Flash-forward to the series finale, and you have Lester becoming murderously insane because she was bitter and jealous over Kirk’s Captaincy, and her own gender blocking her from achieving the power and prestige of starship command. One of many, many ill-conceived ideas of the third season.

I’d be more than happy to dismiss the whole thing by saying that Lester was simply delusional, but the episode itself indicates otherwise, and Roddenberry himself apparently said (years later) that it was blatantly sexist writing and a mistake. A very strange and unfortunate misstep, that’s for sure.

In the back of my mind, I’ve long thought it would be neat if the unseen Captain Harris (from “The Ultimate Computer”) was a woman, since the character’s gender was never mentioned.

Anyway, I was very happy to see JB ignore the Lester nonsense and show Commodore/Admiral Number One commanding the Yorktown in his various IDW comics. A cool progression for that woefully untapped character, and a righting of the wrong caused by “Turnabout Intruder”. 

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 25 November 2018 at 12:53am | IP Logged | 24 post reply

Granted, they didn't show her being very good at it, but to the best of my knowledge, nearly every starship captain but Kirk and Commodore Stone were shown to be somewhat lacking as well. 
+++++++

One of the things I’ve long found very interesting about “Court Martial” is that Stone, while never presented as a “heavy” in the episode, does actually try to get Kirk to take a ground assignment so as to help him sweep Kirk’s supposed role in Ben Finney’s “death” under the rug. Sure, he’s doing it for the sake of appearances—the scandal would be bad for the image of Starfleet—, but it’s still a rather shocking suggestion. Not quite a blatant cover-up, but still rather shady.

If one is watching TOS in production order, this might just be why Stone was suddenly replaced with Mendez by the next time the Enterprise visited Starbase 11, in “The Menagerie”.



Edited by Greg Kirkman on 25 November 2018 at 12:54am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15371
Posted: 25 November 2018 at 1:09am | IP Logged | 25 post reply

Also, for the record, I’ve never quite been comfortable with people writing off Matt Decker as incompetent, or even as a “bad guy”, because: A) He was suffering from severe emotional trauma (and sorta-kinda suicidal behavior, which eventually leads to a heroic-yet-misguided suicide) when we met him; B) We never saw him before the trauma. 

I think it’s kinda unfair to judge the guy or call him incompetent based on how he behaved after his spirit was broken by the loss of his crew. The Captain’s Log playback paints a picture of a man who is calm and collected, and the episode (as well as others, like “The Apple”) is clearly making the point that Kirk himself could potentially snap like Decker, given the right circumstances. 

So, in terms of starship commander competency, Decker kinda gets a pass from me, because we never see him as his best. Ron Tracy is definitely a bad guy. Admiral Stocker is definitely incompetent. Bob Wesley makes a pretty good showing, though, as does Commodore Stone.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login