Differences between Enterprise Refit and A

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-09-27 10:57pm

Do any exist? What are they?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-27 11:09pm

Nothing but bridge sets as far as I know.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-09-28 12:54am

The Enterprise Refit was just that refited Constitution class hull the Enterprise A was built from the kell as a refited constitutuon or "Enterprise" class starship .Its name was merely changed to USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A

Drach · Post by **Drach** » 2003-09-28 01:27am

Actually wasn't the Ent-A formerly the USS Yorktown? Constitution class as well, just refitted and recomissioned

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-09-28 01:33am

Drach wrote:Actually wasn't the Ent-A formerly the USS Yorktown? Constitution class as well, just refitted and recomissioned

Although I am unaware of any canon sources regarding the true origin of the 1701-A, this is generally accepted as the correct answer.

However, Scotty's laments that "they don't make them like they used to" and "the ship was put together by monkeys" do suggest that the 1701-A may have been a newly built ship, however this would run counter to Adm. Morrow's remarks in ST3 that the Constitution class was an obsolete ship; why build another of an obsolete class?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-28 03:04am

I thought Morrow said that Kirks *ship* was 20 years old, obsolete, etc, not the whole class. Excelsior wasn't finished development yet, IIRC, so they still needed a fleet of Constitutions, just not Enterprise, which was one of the originals. But I guess they had only recently refitted her... but the 'refit' was an almost complete rebuild, so it prolly cost a crapload to strip her down and build her all over again.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-09-28 03:37am

It may be they turned the Constitution Refit into a class all its own and were buildng them .It makes since the design was proven nd well tested by STV (( 10 years ??)) so they could hve used part of the budget to get more because there would be situations where a Miranda class didn`t have enough firepower and the Excelsior class was still having the bugs worked out.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-09-28 03:59am

I personally suspect that the Constitution's main advantage over the Miranda is endurance and range... there doesn't look like there's a whole lot of room onboard a Miranda, but a Constitution has nice big cargo bays, a shuttle bay, a saucer that doesn't have to accomodate a M/AM reactor... IMO the Constitutions were probably still better equipped for deep-space assignments.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-28 04:07am

The Mirandas actually had a lot more shuttle space.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-09-28 05:30am

Drach wrote:Actually wasn't the Ent-A formerly the USS Yorktown? Constitution class as well, just refitted and recomissioned

According to Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, the Enterprise-A was originally the U.S.S. Ti-Ho, and it was renamed to Enterprise after Kirk was demoted.

As for how I knew that little factoid, I swear it's just one of those random facts I retained from my childhood as a rabid Trekkie

Old Plympto · Post by **Old Plympto** » 2003-09-28 08:09am

They changed USS Yorktown's name to the USS Enterprise-A, they also changed USS Sao Paolo to the new USS Defiant.

Is this practice a healthy one in any fleet?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-09-28 09:09am

If you look at the Constitution class and the Refit Constitutions, there is virtually not a single line shared between them. While the name stands, the Refits are actually complete rebuilds, I'd be surprised if they could share 5% of the original structure.

Wild Karrde · Post by **Wild Karrde** » 2003-09-28 10:28am

Frank Hipper wrote:If you look at the Constitution class and the Refit Constitutions, there is virtually not a single line shared between them. While the name stands, the Refits are actually complete rebuilds, I'd be surprised if they could share 5% of the original structure.

Taken from http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... -refit.htm

Going by this some of the oringinal structure survived the refit.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-09-28 11:35am

They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I do, Wild Karrde.

A ship's refit IRL normally involves installation of equpment, and sometimes the addition of of new structures such as masts, radars, and such. It can also involve the removal of equipment/structure.

But what we're dealing with here is a nearly complete rebuild, in that framing, internal layout, and structural hardpoints are completely changed.
On the original build, the thinnest section inboard of the the "ring" of the saucer section is quite a bit thicker than on the Refit. This would involve removing nearly all the framing of the original structure. Whatever would remain would have to be minimal.
The original engineering hull may fit inside the outside contours of the Refit version, but without completely stripping all hull plating, and massively re-working, or replacing, the original frames, you would gain little or no internal volume in simply adding a new outer hull contour.
Moving the nacelle mounting hardpoints forward places them where there was no interior support structure for them in the original. And for them to merely exist as they do, and function, there HAS to be some interior framing to support them. This would involve such a massive redesign as to completely remove anything of the original.

Now, I'm not saying that there can't be any original structure left, just that this is no mere refit.

Wild Karrde · Post by **Wild Karrde** » 2003-09-28 12:53pm

Frank Hipper wrote:They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I do, Wild Karrde.

Well duh.

A ship's refit IRL normally involves installation of equpment, and sometimes the addition of of new structures such as masts, radars, and such. It can also involve the removal of equipment/structure.

But what we're dealing with here is a nearly complete rebuild, in that framing, internal layout, and structural hardpoints are completely changed.
On the original build, the thinnest section inboard of the the "ring" of the saucer section is quite a bit thicker than on the Refit. This would involve removing nearly all the framing of the original structure. Whatever would remain would have to be minimal.
The original engineering hull may fit inside the outside contours of the Refit version, but without completely stripping all hull plating, and massively re-working, or replacing, the original frames, you would gain little or no internal volume in simply adding a new outer hull contour.
Moving the nacelle mounting hardpoints forward places them where there was no interior support structure for them in the original. And for them to merely exist as they do, and function, there HAS to be some interior framing to support them. This would involve such a massive redesign as to completely remove anything of the original.

Now, I'm not saying that there can't be any original structure left, just that this is no mere refit.

I agree; there was just so much changed, removed, and/or added to the Connie that the refit has to be classified as a new class of ship.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-09-28 05:02pm

Howedar wrote:The Mirandas actually had a lot more shuttle space.

Really? That's quite surprising. It doesn't seem like a ship that would use shuttles as extensively as a Constitution.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-28 07:17pm

According to http://www.totse.com/en/ego/science_fiction/enthst.html, there were quite a few refits to the original Enterprise. It went from being a Constitution-class in 2188 to being refit as a Bonhomme Richard-class upgrade in 2206, to Achernar-class in 2210. I am assuming these are not actual class changes, but sub-classes based on the first ship to receive the upgrades.

The NCC-1701A is listed as having originally been the Enterprise-class ship Ti-Ho. This vessel is stored in the Starfleet Museum at Memory Alpha.

The NCC-1701B is a Destiny-class, a modified version of the Excelsior. It was destroyed in action against a renegade Klingon L-24 battleship and a Romulan Nova battleship.

The NCC-1701C is alternately described as either Ambassador, Alaska, or Phoenix-class. It is considered most likely that it was a Phoenix, which was an Ambassador upgrade. It vanished mysteriously (time warp). It is believed that another Enterprise was planned for the Alaska-class, but this ship was cancelled.

NCC-1701D, as we're all aware, was a Galaxy-class vessel.

The author lists the references he used in assembling the timeline and classifications of ships, none of which I have access to.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-09-28 08:02pm

Where the fuck do people come up with all these class names?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-28 10:04pm

Mr. Dark, I don't believe any of that is canon.

Uraniun235 wrote: Really? That's quite surprising. It doesn't seem like a ship that would use shuttles as extensively as a Constitution.

Just look at the giant bays on the back, on either side of the impulse engine.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-28 10:50pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Drach wrote:Actually wasn't the Ent-A formerly the USS Yorktown? Constitution class as well, just refitted and recomissioned
Although I am unaware of any canon sources regarding the true origin of the 1701-A, this is generally accepted as the correct answer.

However, Scotty's laments that "they don't make them like they used to" and "the ship was put together by monkeys" do suggest that the 1701-A may have been a newly built ship, however this would run counter to Adm. Morrow's remarks in ST3 that the Constitution class was an obsolete ship; why build another of an obsolete class?

Well, she did just come of a major rebuild. The Ent-A probably still had a lot of bugs to shake out since the ship had been subjected to major changes from the orginal Constitution design.

Andras · Post by **Andras** » 2003-09-29 12:51pm

MSGTTE reported an aft firing photon tube for the -A.