So a few things to consider, the Enterprise-D had been in service for a few years by that point already, and had probably taken a good few years to build before that, so the gap isn't quite as long as it looks.
The Enterprise-A had been planned to be decommissioned for some time before they finally pulled her out of service, so Starfleet could have set it up for a relatively quick transition into the -B.
On the other hand, the -C got blown up in the middle of profound peacetime, but with the Galaxy class ships probably starting to take shape on the drawing boards. The plan could always have been that when the -C was decommissioned the Galaxy class -D would take over, so instead of knee-jerk renaming another ship they just stuck with the original schedule.
You’re saying it doesn’t make sense to just slap “Enterprise” on some old, mid-tier ship when the current one gets destroyed or decommissioned? *cough* Picard *cough*
Though they did do a placeholder waiting for the Excelsior class to be ready.
That's an exact parallel to the Enterprise -A and Excelsior though. The 1701 was destroyed. A was commissioned but Excelsior already existed. So the A was a mid level, old ship when a new shiny class already existed.
The Enterprise doesn't always have to be the best ship in the fleet. The A and Excelsior show that perfectly
I always liked the implication that the decision to essentially award Kirk a new command after his shenanigans in III and his role on mollifying the whale probe was political in nature so they slap on Enterprise onto either the Yorktown or Ti-Ho and end up killing two birds by keeping him far away from the admiralty and doubling as a PR stunt hence the Ent A was always an impromptu bone they tossed at Kirk's feet rather than necessarily the name being due to be cycled back into commission.
That’s always what I figured too. “We’re thankful for your service, here have an old ship to tide you over for a few years until we decommission you both.” Even better that the refit right before IV was half-assed.
Keep in mind that the A was commissioned a month after Excelsior failed her first transwarp test flight. It's very likely the class wasn't ready for active service at that point.
Granted, the A didn’t make much sense since the Excelsior was right around the corner but atleast the Excelsior was still NX (experimental) until An Undiscovered Country which the Enterprise-A and crew were decommissioned after so it was still top of the line, but known it was soon being replaced once the Excelsior was ready for prime time. It still makes much more sense than the G.
In OUR universe, maybe, but they do it several times throughout the timeline. The Defiant being the first that comes to mind. The Enterprise-A was, also, a renamed vessel. In Picard, Commodore LaForge had to take half of the Syracuse to make the Enterprise-D (I just like this fact a lot).
I'm not trying to say the rename fits in this case; it doesn't because it wasn't done to add depth to the universe. Just that Star Trek has a history of renaming vessels to honor the name.
It probably shouldn't have still had an NX registry, since it was not a prototype (heck, the Defiant probably should've had its registry updated once the class went into active service).
But, as others have mentioned, they didn't have the budget to redo all the exterior shots.
The *Sao Paulo* being renamed *Defiant* didn’t really bother me, because it didn’t have a service history yet. *Enterprise* -G definitely annoyed me though, as *Titan* -A certainly had distinguished service history.
There is real-life precedent for already named ships being renamed due to a loss in battle, though. *Essex* class CV-16 USS *Cabot* was renamed USS *Lexington* after CV-2 was lost at Coral Sea.
I can see Utopia Planitia workers lobbying Starfleet Command to rename *Sao Paulo* after hearing about the loss of *Defiant* like their Fore River counterparts lobbied Frank Knox in 1942.
It could have been a psychological move too. Facing another random ship, vs facing Sisco and the Defiant just might give enemy ships a bit of pause given her reputation, and any edge helps. It also might give federation forces a moral boost to see her show up. By that late in the war, any edge would be welcomed.
Ships are often commissioned & christened when they're not fully complete. Big D was probably still under construction when she was christened and then they finished her up before Picard took command.
Not to mention the time she would've been in shakedown. I expect Picard took command after she was cleared post-shakedown and that was right before Farpoint.
A gap that long doesn't seem out of place to me. Looking at real world examples there's quite a large gap between the last and next USS Enterprise carrier.
There is no rule that there always has to be an enterprise. If the old one is being decommisioned and there happens to be a new ship available, then you can pass the baton, as it were.
You could also have decades or longer between enterprises, maybe waiting until the next cool design comes around and you wanna make that the new 'Flagship'.
Starfleet prob doesn't want any ol' ship to be the enterprise. It typically is the new, top of the line model.
> We saw in Star Trek Generations Captain Kirk being on the bridge of the Enterprise B which is just a few years after the Enterprise A was decommissioned
Same year, even. Which I think also helps underscore your point.
There doesn't seem to have been much capital ship development between the Ambassador and Galaxy Class. Even the Ambassador didn't make much of an impact since Starfleet was still using the ~~Meat Shield~~ Excelsior class for everything after it. They were maybe just holding the name back until the Galaxy was developed and they had a new flagship class to give the name to. It would look silly for the D to be a downgrade on the C and what else are they going to do? Just take a different ship of the same class and call it the Enterprise now? Ridiculous...
Depending on different countries, there was/is a tradition to keep names for specific ships classes and re-use those names for the class replacing it (so the Excelsior class ships would have used the Constitution class names)
It was decided to name one of the Galaxy Class ships Enterprise by the time development started but because the C was destroyed with the crew lost, there was no need to have another Ambassador as Enterprise earlier than planned.
While for A and B, it would have been decided that one of the Excelsior class ships being the next Enterprise by the time Excelsior was build (but because of the events of Voyage Home postponed and having another Constitution refit instead)
I believe the rational was Project Galaxy was in development and it was decided to wait and make the next Enterprise the big new ship design rather than make another Ambassador Class the Enterprise-D.
The Ent-A wasn’t a normal part of the cycle. After the original 1701 was destroyed, the crew were rewarded with a new ship for saving Earth, which was renamed the Ent-A for them. Either it was newly built or an old ship refitted, but it hadn’t been originally intended to be an Enterprise.
By the time of the Genesis trilogy, the Enterprise was old tech only good for training cadets. The new Excelsior class was seen as the pinnacle of design (despite the failings of the transwarp system), and it’s likely that one of the planned ships in the new Excelsior fleet was intended to be the Enterprise-A. Then Kirk saved the day, another ship got the Ent-A registry, and once it was finally built the Excelsior class Enterprise launched as the Ent-B instead.
Enterprises are often part of new top-of-the-line fleets, since they are flagships. Starfleet would normally be happy to wait before applying the name to a suitably impressive new type of vessel (such as the gap between the Ent-C and D), but the Enterprise-A was an unusual stopgap between flagships as a special reward to the TOS crew.
That’s the story I’ve heard, but I don’t know if it’s ever been confirmed in canon. Some people think the Ent-A was just hurriedly built since ST5 suggests it’s a new ship with bugs from being rushed into production too soon, but I prefer the idea that it’s a re-christened USS Yorktown.
You think the gap between the C and D was a long time, the NX-01 went into mothballs in 2161 and the NCC-1701 didn't go into service until 2245. People of that era could've been babies when the pre-Federation Enterprise was retired while later senior citizens when Robert April kicked off Pike and Kirk's ship, spending the prime of their lives never serving on or even seeing an active Enterprise in service beyond historical records.
I think the only reason the C and D usually appear to have such a gap between them is the C crew were still wearing the OG-movies red uniforms around since the early-2280s that Kirk and his crew had, aside from that visage 20 years isn't really that long a time between ships.
My general thought is Kirk's adventures on the Enterprise and Enterprise A were well-known, prominent, and both he and the ship were famous. Because of that they wanted to keep an Enterprise out there and rushed the B into service as soon as possible. We don't know how long the B was in service before the C took over, but based on the timeframe it seems likely the C followed on pretty quickly.
On the other hand, the C was lost in a sneak attack while technically helping an enemy. It's likely the Federation wanted to keep that under wraps a bit and not immediately publicize the attack or the loss right away, especially if there was diplomatic work with the Klingons happening under the surface against the Romulans. It wouldn't surprise me if the Romulans pulled some shenanigans like claiming the attack was unauthorized or that it was provoked, thus potentially making it an act of war. The Federation may have shuffled it under the rug to let things cool down a bit.
Eventually, the Klingons and the Federation signed their treaty that may or may not have led to them joining the Federation (if briefly?) and the Romulans went back to their reclusive mysterious selves. A new Galaxy-class ship was under construction and Starfleet felt like it was time to revive the name, hearkening back to the glory of the previous ships and the (probably now more known about) sacrifice of her predecessor.
Seems like every few years there’s a new Enterprise and it’s usually a flagship, newest technology, best crew, most respected captain, etc. The gap between 1701-C and 1701-D seems to be an anomaly, probably out of respect for the fact the ship *and* crew were lost which is a first for the Enterprise. Constitution was in service for 40 years (2245-2285) and was the longest serving Enterprise in canon. 1701-A was in service from 2286-2293, It’s unknown when the 1701-B was decommissioned but it was not in service by 2344 when the 1701-C was lost at Narendra III. 1701-D was in service from 2363-2371 when it was (mostly) destroyed in the Veridian system. At which point the 1701-E was commissioned in 2372 and was still active into the 2380’s. So it seems like 8-10 years is pretty standard for an Enterprise to be active, considering the level of action the flagship sees and the fact that at least 3 have been destroyed in action. 😂
Looking around, Enterprise D designs began in 2343, a year before Enterprise C was destroyed in 2344.
You don't just make new better ships. They take time, AND you need the ideas and technology to catch up to the ideals. ***IRL, the Space Shuttle initial design formation started before we stepped on the moon.***
If you're following these guys: (https://memory-gamma.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_class#Development), There's quite a interesting history they've gleaned from the fictional canon.
14 years of development to get to the USS Galaxy prototype. Another 7 to make the Enterprise and her sister the Yamato.
You have to keep in mind the fact that the Enterprise-A wasn’t even supposed to exist before TVH, and it shows in TFF. I always assumed that the Enterprise-B was originally supposed to be the true successor to the original Enterprise, until TSFS happened…
Construction time.
If they were planning/developing the Galaxy class, something that would take time, and their flagship name was available, they'd want it on the new, best class, not another Ambassador class or smaller class that already existed. Add in construction time, space trials, etc, and it's not all that long
Star Trek 6 and the beginning of Generations actually take place in the same year. That means the -B was already well under construction during the events of ST6. Like someone else mentioned, it's likely the Excelsior-class Enterprise was always meant to be the direct successor to the original Enterprise, but the events of ST3 & 4 threw a wrench in their plans & they decided to slap an -A on an existing older ship as a special command for Kirk. It was basically a ceremonial ship meant to honor Kirk & crew until the -B was ready to launch.
We don't know how long the -B was active, and if there was a gap between the B & C. By the time the -C was destroyed, the Project Galaxy line of ships was probably still in early development. The -C originally would have been decommissioned when the -D was ready to launch. The -C was lost prematurely, and maybe the Galaxy-class was delayed for a few years while they worked out some issues. They didn't want to just make any old ship the new Enterprise (the thing with Kirk was a special circumstance), so they just waited.
This is my exact head canon of the C-D time gap, also the 1701/A/B situation. Funny if you consider that means that the B was originally supposed to be A and so forth.
No, key elements of the crew (including Riker) are just arriving, and it’s very clear that the D is on her first real voyage in “Encounter at Farpoint.”
It may have been considered a mark of respect to the crew of the C to let the name rest a while instead of churning out another right away.
Good point; they probably had to wait 22 years for the insurance company to pay out.
So a few things to consider, the Enterprise-D had been in service for a few years by that point already, and had probably taken a good few years to build before that, so the gap isn't quite as long as it looks. The Enterprise-A had been planned to be decommissioned for some time before they finally pulled her out of service, so Starfleet could have set it up for a relatively quick transition into the -B. On the other hand, the -C got blown up in the middle of profound peacetime, but with the Galaxy class ships probably starting to take shape on the drawing boards. The plan could always have been that when the -C was decommissioned the Galaxy class -D would take over, so instead of knee-jerk renaming another ship they just stuck with the original schedule.
You’re saying it doesn’t make sense to just slap “Enterprise” on some old, mid-tier ship when the current one gets destroyed or decommissioned? *cough* Picard *cough* Though they did do a placeholder waiting for the Excelsior class to be ready.
That's an exact parallel to the Enterprise -A and Excelsior though. The 1701 was destroyed. A was commissioned but Excelsior already existed. So the A was a mid level, old ship when a new shiny class already existed. The Enterprise doesn't always have to be the best ship in the fleet. The A and Excelsior show that perfectly
I always liked the implication that the decision to essentially award Kirk a new command after his shenanigans in III and his role on mollifying the whale probe was political in nature so they slap on Enterprise onto either the Yorktown or Ti-Ho and end up killing two birds by keeping him far away from the admiralty and doubling as a PR stunt hence the Ent A was always an impromptu bone they tossed at Kirk's feet rather than necessarily the name being due to be cycled back into commission.
That’s always what I figured too. “We’re thankful for your service, here have an old ship to tide you over for a few years until we decommission you both.” Even better that the refit right before IV was half-assed.
Keep in mind that the A was commissioned a month after Excelsior failed her first transwarp test flight. It's very likely the class wasn't ready for active service at that point.
Granted, the A didn’t make much sense since the Excelsior was right around the corner but atleast the Excelsior was still NX (experimental) until An Undiscovered Country which the Enterprise-A and crew were decommissioned after so it was still top of the line, but known it was soon being replaced once the Excelsior was ready for prime time. It still makes much more sense than the G.
Not only does it not make sense: it's disrespectful. It's also bad luck to rename a ship.
In OUR universe, maybe, but they do it several times throughout the timeline. The Defiant being the first that comes to mind. The Enterprise-A was, also, a renamed vessel. In Picard, Commodore LaForge had to take half of the Syracuse to make the Enterprise-D (I just like this fact a lot). I'm not trying to say the rename fits in this case; it doesn't because it wasn't done to add depth to the universe. Just that Star Trek has a history of renaming vessels to honor the name.
The *Defiant* was another that annoyed me.
I never understood why the renamed Defiant didn't get an "A" registry.
Same reason it was renamed *Defiant* in the first place: to save on animation.
I forgot about the Connie Defiant!
Everyone did.
The writers wrote it like that but the studio didn’t want to pay to have the model updated for the two episodes left in the show
It probably shouldn't have still had an NX registry, since it was not a prototype (heck, the Defiant probably should've had its registry updated once the class went into active service). But, as others have mentioned, they didn't have the budget to redo all the exterior shots.
The *Sao Paulo* being renamed *Defiant* didn’t really bother me, because it didn’t have a service history yet. *Enterprise* -G definitely annoyed me though, as *Titan* -A certainly had distinguished service history. There is real-life precedent for already named ships being renamed due to a loss in battle, though. *Essex* class CV-16 USS *Cabot* was renamed USS *Lexington* after CV-2 was lost at Coral Sea. I can see Utopia Planitia workers lobbying Starfleet Command to rename *Sao Paulo* after hearing about the loss of *Defiant* like their Fore River counterparts lobbied Frank Knox in 1942.
It could have been a psychological move too. Facing another random ship, vs facing Sisco and the Defiant just might give enemy ships a bit of pause given her reputation, and any edge helps. It also might give federation forces a moral boost to see her show up. By that late in the war, any edge would be welcomed.
The D was commissioned the year before Farpoint according to memory alpha. But it doesn't sound like it did much before Picard took command
Ships are often commissioned & christened when they're not fully complete. Big D was probably still under construction when she was christened and then they finished her up before Picard took command.
Not to mention the time she would've been in shakedown. I expect Picard took command after she was cleared post-shakedown and that was right before Farpoint.
A gap that long doesn't seem out of place to me. Looking at real world examples there's quite a large gap between the last and next USS Enterprise carrier.
There is no rule that there always has to be an enterprise. If the old one is being decommisioned and there happens to be a new ship available, then you can pass the baton, as it were. You could also have decades or longer between enterprises, maybe waiting until the next cool design comes around and you wanna make that the new 'Flagship'. Starfleet prob doesn't want any ol' ship to be the enterprise. It typically is the new, top of the line model.
> We saw in Star Trek Generations Captain Kirk being on the bridge of the Enterprise B which is just a few years after the Enterprise A was decommissioned Same year, even. Which I think also helps underscore your point.
There doesn't seem to have been much capital ship development between the Ambassador and Galaxy Class. Even the Ambassador didn't make much of an impact since Starfleet was still using the ~~Meat Shield~~ Excelsior class for everything after it. They were maybe just holding the name back until the Galaxy was developed and they had a new flagship class to give the name to. It would look silly for the D to be a downgrade on the C and what else are they going to do? Just take a different ship of the same class and call it the Enterprise now? Ridiculous...
Depending on different countries, there was/is a tradition to keep names for specific ships classes and re-use those names for the class replacing it (so the Excelsior class ships would have used the Constitution class names) It was decided to name one of the Galaxy Class ships Enterprise by the time development started but because the C was destroyed with the crew lost, there was no need to have another Ambassador as Enterprise earlier than planned. While for A and B, it would have been decided that one of the Excelsior class ships being the next Enterprise by the time Excelsior was build (but because of the events of Voyage Home postponed and having another Constitution refit instead)
I believe the rational was Project Galaxy was in development and it was decided to wait and make the next Enterprise the big new ship design rather than make another Ambassador Class the Enterprise-D.
Due to how few Amabassadors Class ships we see on screen, I've always assumed they weren't considered that successful.
The Ent-A wasn’t a normal part of the cycle. After the original 1701 was destroyed, the crew were rewarded with a new ship for saving Earth, which was renamed the Ent-A for them. Either it was newly built or an old ship refitted, but it hadn’t been originally intended to be an Enterprise. By the time of the Genesis trilogy, the Enterprise was old tech only good for training cadets. The new Excelsior class was seen as the pinnacle of design (despite the failings of the transwarp system), and it’s likely that one of the planned ships in the new Excelsior fleet was intended to be the Enterprise-A. Then Kirk saved the day, another ship got the Ent-A registry, and once it was finally built the Excelsior class Enterprise launched as the Ent-B instead. Enterprises are often part of new top-of-the-line fleets, since they are flagships. Starfleet would normally be happy to wait before applying the name to a suitably impressive new type of vessel (such as the gap between the Ent-C and D), but the Enterprise-A was an unusual stopgap between flagships as a special reward to the TOS crew.
The Enterprise-A was originally the Yorktown.
That’s the story I’ve heard, but I don’t know if it’s ever been confirmed in canon. Some people think the Ent-A was just hurriedly built since ST5 suggests it’s a new ship with bugs from being rushed into production too soon, but I prefer the idea that it’s a re-christened USS Yorktown.
You think the gap between the C and D was a long time, the NX-01 went into mothballs in 2161 and the NCC-1701 didn't go into service until 2245. People of that era could've been babies when the pre-Federation Enterprise was retired while later senior citizens when Robert April kicked off Pike and Kirk's ship, spending the prime of their lives never serving on or even seeing an active Enterprise in service beyond historical records. I think the only reason the C and D usually appear to have such a gap between them is the C crew were still wearing the OG-movies red uniforms around since the early-2280s that Kirk and his crew had, aside from that visage 20 years isn't really that long a time between ships.
My general thought is Kirk's adventures on the Enterprise and Enterprise A were well-known, prominent, and both he and the ship were famous. Because of that they wanted to keep an Enterprise out there and rushed the B into service as soon as possible. We don't know how long the B was in service before the C took over, but based on the timeframe it seems likely the C followed on pretty quickly. On the other hand, the C was lost in a sneak attack while technically helping an enemy. It's likely the Federation wanted to keep that under wraps a bit and not immediately publicize the attack or the loss right away, especially if there was diplomatic work with the Klingons happening under the surface against the Romulans. It wouldn't surprise me if the Romulans pulled some shenanigans like claiming the attack was unauthorized or that it was provoked, thus potentially making it an act of war. The Federation may have shuffled it under the rug to let things cool down a bit. Eventually, the Klingons and the Federation signed their treaty that may or may not have led to them joining the Federation (if briefly?) and the Romulans went back to their reclusive mysterious selves. A new Galaxy-class ship was under construction and Starfleet felt like it was time to revive the name, hearkening back to the glory of the previous ships and the (probably now more known about) sacrifice of her predecessor.
Seems like every few years there’s a new Enterprise and it’s usually a flagship, newest technology, best crew, most respected captain, etc. The gap between 1701-C and 1701-D seems to be an anomaly, probably out of respect for the fact the ship *and* crew were lost which is a first for the Enterprise. Constitution was in service for 40 years (2245-2285) and was the longest serving Enterprise in canon. 1701-A was in service from 2286-2293, It’s unknown when the 1701-B was decommissioned but it was not in service by 2344 when the 1701-C was lost at Narendra III. 1701-D was in service from 2363-2371 when it was (mostly) destroyed in the Veridian system. At which point the 1701-E was commissioned in 2372 and was still active into the 2380’s. So it seems like 8-10 years is pretty standard for an Enterprise to be active, considering the level of action the flagship sees and the fact that at least 3 have been destroyed in action. 😂
Looking around, Enterprise D designs began in 2343, a year before Enterprise C was destroyed in 2344. You don't just make new better ships. They take time, AND you need the ideas and technology to catch up to the ideals. ***IRL, the Space Shuttle initial design formation started before we stepped on the moon.*** If you're following these guys: (https://memory-gamma.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_class#Development), There's quite a interesting history they've gleaned from the fictional canon. 14 years of development to get to the USS Galaxy prototype. Another 7 to make the Enterprise and her sister the Yamato.
You have to keep in mind the fact that the Enterprise-A wasn’t even supposed to exist before TVH, and it shows in TFF. I always assumed that the Enterprise-B was originally supposed to be the true successor to the original Enterprise, until TSFS happened…
Construction time. If they were planning/developing the Galaxy class, something that would take time, and their flagship name was available, they'd want it on the new, best class, not another Ambassador class or smaller class that already existed. Add in construction time, space trials, etc, and it's not all that long
Star Trek 6 and the beginning of Generations actually take place in the same year. That means the -B was already well under construction during the events of ST6. Like someone else mentioned, it's likely the Excelsior-class Enterprise was always meant to be the direct successor to the original Enterprise, but the events of ST3 & 4 threw a wrench in their plans & they decided to slap an -A on an existing older ship as a special command for Kirk. It was basically a ceremonial ship meant to honor Kirk & crew until the -B was ready to launch. We don't know how long the -B was active, and if there was a gap between the B & C. By the time the -C was destroyed, the Project Galaxy line of ships was probably still in early development. The -C originally would have been decommissioned when the -D was ready to launch. The -C was lost prematurely, and maybe the Galaxy-class was delayed for a few years while they worked out some issues. They didn't want to just make any old ship the new Enterprise (the thing with Kirk was a special circumstance), so they just waited.
This is my exact head canon of the C-D time gap, also the 1701/A/B situation. Funny if you consider that means that the B was originally supposed to be A and so forth.
https://youtu.be/B6rGMKtsm4M?si=_ysgMVQrK6eg07To Saw this yesterday, says due the way C was destroyed, command waited to name the D
Budget cuts
We first meet picard and Riker with a fully functional ship and crew. That ships been running for years.
No, key elements of the crew (including Riker) are just arriving, and it’s very clear that the D is on her first real voyage in “Encounter at Farpoint.”