StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Enterprise is, throughout the ST series and films, Starfleet's most prestigious ship, and several versions have been the Federation Flagship. That being considered, why have we never had an Enterprise-class of ships?

Maybe it's because Starfleet doesn't want to saddle such a prestigious name with the first version of a new vessel type? Then again, wasn't the Enterprise the first of the NX-01 series of ships? So, maybe there's some other reason? Perhaps once they do that, how could you top that model, name-wise?

It could be that there was already an Enterprise in the fleet at the time the new flagship classes were being built. In the US Navy, we had an Enterprise class (CVN-65). She was still in service when the Nimitzes were being built, and was not yet fully decommissioned when the Fords were being built. So they gave the name to the newest Ford, rather than waiting 50 years for a new carrier class.

Maybe it's because of the NX-01. They're so ashamed of that era that while they're not willing to give up the name entirely, they're not will to sick the NX-01 curse on the lead ship of a new class. Have the new class prove itself, then see if it can continue to do so if named 'Enterprise'.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:The Enterprise is, throughout the ST series and films, Starfleet's most prestigious ship, and several versions have been the Federation Flagship. That being considered, why have we never had an Enterprise-class of ships?

In ST2, the bridge simulator was "Enterprise Class" I think. So a simulation of an Enterprise Class bridge. Which is 100% identical to the USS Enterprise's bridge - which is a Constitution refit. It's possible the refit class is called Enterprise class but it's never been confirmed or denied on screen.

Make your own mind up on that one ><

Building a one-run unique ship might not suit the Federation priorities. The Feds do seem to like pushing out a uniform selection of ships that they can stick to for decades.

It is easier to build a ship class that has been tested and works THEN name it Enterprise than build an entirely new class of ship which could potentially fall to bits. The E-D almost had that same issue when they were concerned the Galaxy Class defective.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:The Enterprise is, throughout the ST series and films, Starfleet's most prestigious ship, and several versions have been the Federation Flagship. That being considered, why have we never had an Enterprise-class of ships?

I've seen the Constitution refit (The Motion Picture version) labeled as 'Enterprise Class', granted that was primarily in games

biostem wrote:Maybe it's because Starfleet doesn't want to saddle such a prestigious name with the first version of a new vessel type? Then again, wasn't the Enterprise the first of the NX-01 series of ships? So, maybe there's some other reason? Perhaps once they do that, how could you top that model, name-wise?

In universe Archer's ship is cataloged as "NX Class"

XCV-330 supposedly still existed, maybe the XCV's were named 'Enterprise class' (instead of Declaration) and something very bad happened to 330-Enterprise and extended to the whole line (design flaw, etc.) Superstitious attitude would mean that starfleet wouldn't recycle 'Enterprise 'as a class designation, hence using "NX Class" instead.

The NX-class ships from Enterprise had the same naming scheme as the NASA space shuttles. The first one for testing was the Enterprise, followed by Colombia, and in the books, the next one was Discovery, followed by Atlantis and Endeavor.

biostem wrote:Maybe it's because Starfleet doesn't want to saddle such a prestigious name with the first version of a new vessel type? Then again, wasn't the Enterprise the first of the NX-01 series of ships? So, maybe there's some other reason? Perhaps once they do that, how could you top that model, name-wise?

At time of the NX-01, Enterprise wasn't such a famous name. It was probably Archer who really did the job of making it a name to conjure with in the first place, as opposed to being merely one of dozens of historical warship names.

Also, yes- if a new hull plan doesn't work out, you don't want the new Enterprise to be a anddisappointing clunker. Also note that in most cases the new Enterprise hull is commissioned at a time when there is no new class in development. The Constitution-class Enterprise-nil (and for that matter Enterprise-A) were still in service when the Excelsiors came out. The Enterprise-D was destroyed in action when, presumably, the first Sovereigns were being built. The timing is less certain for the Enterprise-B; the Enterprise-C was definitely lost in action before the first Galaxies were laid down.

It is likely that one of the first production run of Galaxies had the name Enterprise reassigned to it after the loss of the Enterprise-C at Narendra.

Simon_Jester wrote:It is likely that one of the first production run of Galaxies had the name Enterprise reassigned to it after the loss of the Enterprise-C at Narendra.

That was what the US Navy did with all three carriers lost in 1942. USS Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet were all christened as Essex class carriers after being lost at the battles of Coral Sea, Midway, and the Santa Cruz Islands respectively.

As you state, it likely is a question of timing. At the times they are ready to commission a new Enterprise they are in a position in which they have recently build a new class. That certainly seems to be the case with both Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E.

Although the Enterprise-B, at least, seems to have been commissioned as a planned action, after other ships of her class had been in production for quite a few years.

Then again, this may have been the first time someone deliberately built an Enterprise of a new class after the name's reputation became a legend. A later generation of Starfleet officers would probably have christened an Enterprise-A from the Excelsior-class a lot earlier in the production run.

That brings up something else I've always wondered. Was the Enterprise-A a new-build that was hastily renamed, or was it an existing Constitution-refit that got a new name and crew?

Eternal_Freedom wrote:That brings up something else I've always wondered. Was the Enterprise-A a new-build that was hastily renamed, or was it an existing Constitution-refit that got a new name and crew?

IIRC it was renamed from Yorktown...but I can't recall where that came from.

Um, wasn't that the out of universe story behind the E-Nil? That Rodenberry originally wanted to use USS Yorktown but then the real life carrier USS Enterprise came along and he switched names?

It was, but Roddenberry dragged that theory out again when it came to the E-A. That said, Roddenberry had no involvement with writing Star Trek IV, and the theory was never made official by TNG or any of the subsequent shows, so it's one of those things that you can take or leave.

Well, they apparently either magicked a brand new constitution class ship out of *no where* or there was one ready to go and they renamed it Enterprise after the fact.

Clearly the 2nd one is the answer. In Canon there's no mention of its previous name. We did hear the yorktown was disabled and the crew very close to death in ST4... so sure.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten what happened to Yorktown at the start...if that is where they got the E-A from, that's just a bit grim.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Oh yes, I'd forgotten what happened to Yorktown at the start...if that is where they got the E-A from, that's just a bit grim.

well let's hope the captain was just court marshaled for "losing" a ship, the entire crew survived and were reassigned or something

Prometheus Unbound wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Oh yes, I'd forgotten what happened to Yorktown at the start...if that is where they got the E-A from, that's just a bit grim.

well let's hope the captain was just court marshaled for "losing" a ship, the entire crew survived and were reassigned or something

Hmm, according to Memory Alpha, the "Yorktown is renamed Enterprise" idea was officially stated by Michael Okuda in the 2010 ST Fact Files that are apparently officially endorsed etc.

So now I'm wondering if the crew did indeed survive and became the E-A's crew, or if they had 400 odd frozen bodies to remove and the atmosphere cleaned up.

EDIT: Also, given the CINC's comment about the E-Nil being "twenty years old" (with the implication she wasn't worth refitting), it's amusing that they'd use an equally-aged ship for the E-A.

There could have been more than one run of Constitution class. Some might have been build fresh in 'refit configuration'

oh yeah, there were 400 others or so heh.


the idea was as far back as the 1991 encyclopedia i think? i think it was in there.

Crazedwraith wrote:There could have been more than one run of Constitution class. Some might have been build fresh in 'refit configuration'

True. Memory Alpha lists several other possible histories, including the USS Ti-Ho and USS Atlantis, both new-built but not yet commissioned.

Scotty's remark in STV (groan) about "this new ship must have been built by monkey's" suggests it was a new build and not the poor old Yorktown. Though it makes little sense for it to be a new-build in 2286 only to be ordered decommissioned just seven years later after STVI.

Well are either Ti-Ho or Atlantis canon? Unless they were in tiny writing on a screen somewhere, I don't recall them being mentioned.

Scotty's line is actually "I think this ship was put together by monkeys. Half the doors wont open and guess whose job it is to make it right?"

None of them say it's new - only that at commissioning it wasn't working properly.


Either way, apparently star fleet had *a* constitution refit available 3 months after ST4. There weren't any space frames being built that we saw in spacedock in ST3... but then they have that orbitting dry dock where they refit the original enterprise so that might not mean anything.

IMO it's either the Yorktown, or it was meant as a new / reconditioned ship that got renamed at the last minute.

... Or no, thinking about it, Ent-nil was due to be decomissioned.. but then the crew was being reassigned .. I don't think it was originally meant to be The Enterprise when it started construction, whatever its origin.

I'm thinking it was new and ready to be commissioned, or mothballed and reactivated. The number of problems Scotty was having seems to indicate either bugs needing to be worked out during a shakedown cruise, or problems caused by being in storage for a long time. I'm leaning towards the latter, since even in ST3 they were already planning on mothballing the Enterprise due to her age.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Well are either Ti-Ho or Atlantis canon? Unless they were in tiny writing on a screen somewhere, I don't recall them being mentioned.

Those names weren't mentioned on-screen, but neither was the "E-A was the Yorktown" theory. You'd have to go by author's intent to consider that the official explanation, which is problematic seeing how the author in this case would actually be Harve Bennett, not Roddenberry.

Admittedly, it's still a better explanation than nothing, and probably the nearest we're ever going to get to a proper one, but it's nonetheless fanon rather than canon.