Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)

Better way
Bridges. Gene imagined a better way to build ships than he experienced in WW2. Modular design. The entire Bridge was replaceable at a base, as were any parts. Hot Swappable Hard Drives are a similar concept.

Three Captains. Gene served in a WW2 bomber. He imagined that military rank would evolve into offices. Only Kirk had the power of Captain. Spock and Scott held the position of most senior department head, rank (and benefits) of captain (small c). This is inline with every member of the Apollo crew being a "commander" but there being only one real Commander of the mission. Read Jim Lovell. Wont make sense to those of you outside of US Govt or NASA specifically, but it happens.

Decommissioning and new crew
Wouldn't it be consistent, if since Kirk was retiring, that the ship was only renamed because Kirk came to command her, that she was decommissioned and recommissioned back with her former name?

I had always assumed that Kirk and crew had served for many years, and that it was the CREW that Starfleet was ordering to be "decomissioned". Kirk's final log about a new crew taking over supports this--that the ship would in fact live on for many years, but a new crew would inherit it.\

What no one has though of yet, and Gene would never have thought of is "A Sound of Thunder" paradox. By rescuing the whales, Kirk & company altered time and Enterprise-A comes about. Moot point now, I know, but makes more sense than Gene's rewarding criminals with a new ship.

I would agree, I also just added to the decommissioning since it was never really made clear if kirk imidiatly followed the return orders Twenty one cries for help (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes on the fate of Enterprise A
I believe that the Enterprise A went on. I think that the Wiki article here is wrong. It speculates that maybe it did, but it seems to want to conclude that the ship was to be retired.

I say that's wrong. Early in Star Trek VI when Spock volunteers Kirk and crew for the peace mission to escort Gorkon, Kirk clearly says, "This crew is due to stand down in 3 months." This crew. Meaning that the entire crew was to retire together. Scotty makes reference to buying a boat. Kirk also says, "We've done our bit for king and country."

Later, in his final log, he says, "This is the final voyage of the Starship Enterprise under MY command. This ship and her history will soon become the care of ANOTHER crew.  To them and their posterity we commit our future."--sivazh 7:37 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In the semi-canon Shatnerverse, Enterprise A is decommissioned and sold to a neutral power, before being destroyed. This solves the problem neatly.

Novelisation inconsistency
The novelisation of one of the movies, I believe it was ST:V, though it might be ST:VI says that ten years has passed during which, Kirk had command of the Enterprise-A. I'm not imagining this, but I just can't remember which of the two books it was, it's more likely to be ST:VI. Douglasnicol 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shakedown
I would think that Scotty's statement that the Enterprise is in need of a shakedown is pretty substantial evidence that the Enterprise is NOT an older ship that was just renamed. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakedown_(testing) and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_trial Yorktown was already operational. If she's the same Yorktown as the original thirteen Constitution-class ships, this makes her at LEAST as old as the original 1701, and she would NOT need the extensive repairs the 1701-A required in STV. Additionally, as can be seen in the movie, the Probe didn't cause lasting damage to ships or technology as noticeable as the 1701-A's. This can be seen when the command bunker at Starfleet Headquarters, Space Dock, and Saratoga immediately came back online once the Probe withdrew. The Probe only disrupted energy sources, (damage caused at Starfleet was the result of the severe storms generated by the Probe, and would not have affected a ship in space) and the number of bugs on the 1701-A (like the doors not opening) don't fit the effects seen in the previous film. As Scotty remarked, she has a fine engine, and that's one of the systems that WOULD have been impaired.

Of course, I can also just point out that Scotty's dialogue SPECIFICALLY referred to her as a "new ship." Or that in my FIRST edit I referenced a source which DID offer direct support for a new ship. The only supporting evidence we have of her formerly being the Yorktown is Roddenberry's word, which although it comes from Gene is still no more canon than Scotty's Guide to the Enterprise. Ambaryer (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Anyway. Cite a reliable third-party source that articulates the same thinking; otherwise, your extrapolation based on primary sources is unencyclopedic original research. --EEMIV (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How is the word of Roddenberry a valid source, but Scotty's Guide to the Enterprise ISN'T? SGtE specifically points to her being a new ship. This fits with Scotty's dialog in STV, as well as supporting the other observations above. Or do I need a signed letter from some writer working at Paramount when STV was filmed 10 years ago that says "Yeah, I guess she COULD be a new ship all along." Ambaryer (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Commissioning of Enterprise-A
Would the ship not have been just commissioned (i.e. brand new) at the end of Star Trek IV? It would make since this way as the original Enterprise had been destroyed, and the crew thought that they would get another ship, thus suggseting that no one had heard anything about the renaming of another ship. --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/ this entry- the 1701-A was the ship introduced at the very end of Star Trek IV- the voyage home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.78.58 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Input requested
I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has this article watchlisted. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Star Trek Beyond statements regarding AU NCC-1701-A
We've had some edits removing alternate reality material for no reason beyond "this article deals with the Prime Universe ship". While the bulk of the article does, the mention of the Star Trek Beyond version of the ship has its own section. If this is to be removed or retained, we need to have discussion instead of just removing it outright. "This is an article about the prime verse" isn't exactly in the spirit of content removal. I'm also fairly sure in this instance, without proper discussion or concensus at least, this is a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding content blanking Gistech (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Using "the" with ship's names
A discussion relevant to the most recently added/reverted edits to the mainpage has started here: Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). Thanks. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Class + infobox trivia
Redux of discussion at 1701 article page .... added ref to reference material maintained by current license holder/property owner. Cygnus X1 has pretty graphics (some of them borderline copyvio + plenty of fanity material) and fails to qualify as a WP:RS. Furthermore, the specific Cyngus-hosted blueprints refer to the refit Enterprise in TMP; it is WP:OR to infer those specs, counts, etc. apply to a totally different ship. Lastly, emitter counts and whatnot in the infobox are unnecessary trivia for general-audience topic coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Input requested: name-change proposal that would affect this article
Fellow Treksters: I have an idea that would affect this and other articles about various starships Enterprise. I'd appreciate your input at the WikiProject talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
NB link in talk-page prompt above. Per consensus at that discussion, redirecting this page to NCC-1701 article due to negligible real world distinction between these vessels. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , please roll back any changes made from that discussion. What is aptly described as a complicated and head-scratching proposal made September 3, just four days ago. There is no agreement made in four days, there is the start of a discussion which many of us have not gone to wrap-our-heads-around yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Predecessor & Successor
Since this article addresses a single generation of the Enterprise, I would find it helpful to add links to pages for the other Enterprise starships that preceded and succeeded this one. Similar to other wiki content such as US presidents. My interest comes from curiosity on the history of the Enterprise in chronological order from Archer's ship forward. 172.124.209.27 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A reasonable desire, and that's one of the reasons both Template:Spaceships_named_Enterprise and Template:Star_Trek_ships_named_Enterprise are at the bottom of the article. I also added an explicit note about the successor Enterprise to the end of the depiction section. A link to the earlier Enterprise is in the lede section. --EEMIV (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)