Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B)

37,509pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Harriman, Jr.? (obsolete)Edit

Regarding "Captain John Harriman, jr."

Where did the Jnr come from ? I don't remember this. Alex Peckover 09:49, Jun 10, 2004 (CEST)

Tasha and alternate timeline (obsolete)Edit

Whoever wrote this forgot about the "alternate" time line where it is yanked out of battle with the Klingons and meets Enterprise under command of Jean-Luc Picard where Tasha Yar was still alive and where Guinon tells Picard Yar died before she got to the ship by being drowned by the "blob" creature and the alternate universe Yar fell in love with a crewman from the earlier century and she went back in time as tactical officer and was captured after the battle with to save Klingon's and sold to Romulan General. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.250.193.13 (talk).

erm...you are talking about the USS Enterprise-C, aren't you? --BlueMars 00:19, Jul 2, 2004 (CEST)

YES he is, clearly whomever wrote this has forgotten his basic english alphabet or maybe he is Tamarian and such things escape him

RegistryEdit

Is there any valid reference to what the "B" stands for? I'm guessing Beta, but can anyone confirm that? – 7th Tactical 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no cannon reference to the B standing for anything. Please see my response to this under Enterprise E. Borguselinux 00:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If anything it would probably stand for 'Bravo' from the phonetic alphabet, so you'd have Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo as the latest Enterprise. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.100.236.215 (talk).

DrydockEdit

The drydock for the "Enterprise-B" was reconstructed from pieces of the drydock model first used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. - Adambomb1701 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The original drydock had seven sections lengthwise; this was cut to six. The three vertical sections were cut to two. The office complex in the front was added. The details surrounding the Enterprise (probes, lights) were also removed.

Active?Edit

I've just noticed that the status of this vessel is Active? Is their enough proof of this or should I or someone change it to some else. It seems highly unlikely that its still in use. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.194.29 (talk).

Actually, it states the date of 2293 beside the 'active' note, which means that the ship was last seen to be active in 2293. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that date linked there is the kicker, but the status indicates what was the 'last known' condition of the ship. --Alan 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

renamedEdit

Since the Enterprise A was taken out of service in 2293 it would have been impossible to produce a brand new ship from scratch. It could be assumed that the B was originally laid down under another name. Would there be any evidence to back such an assumption? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.132.101 (talk).

There isn't, and it is just as likely that it was being constructed while the Enterprise-A was still in service with the intention of their not being a lag time with no Enterprise, and therefore would have been named "Enteprise-B" the entire time. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the original Enterprise was active (sort of) in 2285, it is possible that the Excelsior-class ship was then being built (or in the late planning stages) under another registry number (in the NCC-2500-range, perhaps?). The original plan would have been that the original Constitution-class vessel would be removed from academy duty once the new Excelsiour-class vessel came on line. The events of STII, III & IV caused and early retirement (and destruction) of the original ship, and its replacement with an existing ship (with a -A suffix in honor of James T Kirk)to bridge the gap. At that time, the Excelsior-class vessel would have been relabeled NCC-1701-B while building in Spacedock. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.230.114 (talk).
That's all kinds of levels of baseless speculation, and useless to even put here since the conversation ended two years ago. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the destruction of 1701 and the decision to rename the Yorktown as 1701-A caused a form of cascade effect in ship names. Remember that several factors are in play here; first, ship names are usually selected years before construction actually begins (and is not official until the ship is actually commissioned); second, it is generally agreed that the reason 1701-A was decommissioned was because of the Khitomer Peace Accords, simply put, without the Klingon threat, the need for a large warfleet was reduced. If we accept these, then it stands to reason that the ship that would become 1701-B was laid out under a different name and registry. Given that the "-A" suffix was made to honour Kirk and given that Kirk was still alive at the time, once the need to decommission "A" became apparent, the next "top-of-the-line" ship got renamed to 1701-B, probably the very same day the "A" got decommissioned, meaning that the name of that ship (let's call it "Filehn Deblanc") gets bumped to another ship, but (and here's the fun part) not the registry number, so the hypothetical USS Filehn Deblanc NCC-2107 becomes USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B, the projected USS Nextin Line NCC-2200 now becomes USS Filehn Deblanc NCC-2200 and the registry number NCC-2107 is left unassigned, meaning that hull registry numbers follow sequentially 2106, 2108 with no 2107 in between.Sings-With-Spirits 00:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
....This all sounds well and good unless the USS Filehn Deblanc or USS Nexinline is being named after a peviously existing ship with a destinguished history like Enterprise in which case the registry number would have to move with the ship name.
However, at this time, the ONLY starfleet ship to carry its previous registry number is the USS Enterprise NCC-1701~. Remember that in the Next Generation era no starfleet vessel besides Enterprise had been commissioned with the registry number of a previous vessel. The only other starfleet vessel we know of in canon that has been so honoured is USS Relativity NCV-474439-G; a ship from the 29th century. If what you say were the case, then USS Filehn Deblanc would already have a registry number lower than the "new" NCC-2107 followed by a letter (say, NCC-1514-A), instead of NCC-2107. EVEN if this were the case, then the projected USS Nextin Line NCC-2200 becomes USS Filehn Deblanc NCC-1514-A and the projected USS Theone Aphterdat NCC-2432 becomes USS Nextin Line NCC-2432, with the registry number NCC-2200 remaining unassigned. This is not anything new: look up Unnited States Navy carriers; you will see how it happens in practice that ships that are cancelled do not have their registry changed and the next ship in line might be several numbers away from the previous ship of the class (i.e. CV-49 followed by CV-59). Sings-With-Spirits 18:15, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (obsolete)Edit

This segment of the page confuses me.

  • However, this is not altogether inconsistent with other portrayals of a very lightly-defended Sol system, as seen in "Paradise Lost" and other episodes.

Someone went in and added link status to it, and it came up red. I don't think we have any red links for actual episodes. Anyone have any idea whats going on here?

I fixed it by changing it to an episode template link. The problem was that the quotation marks were inside the link, when they should have been outside.– Cleanse 12:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sol Defended Edit

It seems unlikely that the Enterprise-B was the only ship in range, which would mean there was no other Federation starship in the Sol system, the heart of the Federation. However, this is not altogether inconsistent with other portrayals of a very lightly-defended Sol system, as seen in "Paradise Lost" and other episodes.

This whole statement seems out of place and much like a nitpick as the second half itself contradicts the first. Anyway, seems very nitpickish. – Morder 11:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed as of today.--31dot 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Thirty years since an Enteprise under command of Kirk" Edit

In Star Trek Generations, a reporter mentioned that it had been 30 years since an enterprise had been commanded by Kirk. The latter events of Generations seems to have taken place in 2371. Picard mentions that history records kirk dying 80 years ago, rendering a time somewhere in 2290s, coinciding with the current commission date for the Enterprise-B as 2293. Kirk did indeed retire in 2293, after the events of The Undiscovered Country. In Star trek Generations he mentioned that he told his current lover that he was going back to Starfleet. I believe it is safe to assume these two events happened sequentially. One could speculate that his return to starfleet was on his mind when he got pulled into the nexus, and that is why his fantasy manifested as it did. Just like Picards fantasy manifested as a full family after Renee and his Brother died. However, the events of Relics mention that the Jenolan left on its journey in 2294. I am not very familiar with the episode, and my DVDs are not handy. Is the date of the Jenolan crash solid? Is there a reconciliation to be had? ~ Furyofaseraph 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Furyofaseraph

You misunderstood the reporter. He says that this is the first Enterprise in 30 years to not have Kirk in command. This can be confirmed by viewing the script. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification. ~ Furyofaseraph 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Furyofaseraph

...suggesting the online script is accurate. In this case it would be true. Additionally, I don't think that the "80 years" reference needs to be taken literally, per se, especially when the screen text overlay at the beginning of the TNG portion of the film specifically stated "78 years later". --Alan 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia Edit

/=== Apocrypha ===/
According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the Enterprise-B was involved in exploration beyond the Gourami sector, charting 142 star systems and making First Contact with seventeen new civilizations prior to her decommissioning.
The Enterprise-B is involved in:
Which provide the following timeline:
  • 2301 - Demora Sulu is promoted to first officer.
  • 2311 - Following the Tomed Incident with the Romulan Star Empire, Captain Harriman steps down, and Demora Sulu is promoted to captain.
  • 2315 - Captain Sulu gives up command – for one year – to care for her terminally-ill paternal grandmother, Hana Shimizu.
  • 2332 - The Enterprise-C is commissioned. (Well of Souls)
This leaves even the non-canon fate of the Enterprise-B uncertain, but her destruction/decommissioning would fall within the years :2316–2331. The USS Enterprise-D cut-away poster lists a Captain Tomas Johnson, Jr. for the Enterprise-B. He may have :captained the ship during Demora Sulu's leave of absence.

The apocrypha section is a copy/paste from the wikipedia entry on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) and needs to be rewritten. — Morder 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And MJBurrage, the proper course of action would have been to address it here before reverting it. --Alan 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if it was written by MJBurrage, would it not still be a copyvio? I mean really there's no way to prove they're the same person. And the licenses don't match either...not sure how this would work :) — Morder 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant edit would seem to be this. As for confirming that Wikipedia's User:MJBurrage is also MA's User:MJBurrage, he or she could place a committed identity hash on his or her user pages on both wikis. I think that should satisfy any uncertainties. As for licencing, both user pages indicate that MJBurrage has released all contributions into the public domain, so it's not a problem. —Josiah Rowe 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Female Flag Officer and attache at Launch of USS Enterprise BEdit

I have long noticed a female Starfleet Flag Officer, wearing ribbons and with flag officer uniform modifications, accompanied by a grey haired Starfleet Captain among the dignitaries at the Launching of the USS Enterprise B. Do these two have any significance? It is one of the few times I have seen such officers wearing service ribbons in Starfleet.

I have one image somewhere of this officer, however, her rank pin is not visible due to blocking.

Decommissioned?Edit

I have confirmed that the Enterprise B was decommissioned by watching a documentary called Evolution of the Enterprise. It states that it was decommissioned, but it didn't state when it was decommissioned. --User:Captain Mora-Hatcher 1:40pm April 2, 2010

Information from documentaries cannot be mentioned as canon information. Only what was on screen is canon. It can be mentioned in the Background section(if the information is from production sources).--31dot 20:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

3rd or 4th Enterprise? Edit

Is this the 3rd or 4th Enterprise? Somewhere in this article it claims this is the 3rd USS Enterprise which seems wrong because of the NX-01 which would be #1 followed by the NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A making the NCC-1701-B 4th. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.34.165.28 (talk).

The NX-01 was not a "USS" Enterprise. Please sign your posts. -- sulfur 21:12, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
5th Enterprise (XVC & NX were both United Earth ships pre-federation.86.7.91.182 21:05, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Excelsior Class Question Edit

I know it's common knowledge that it is an Excelsior Class Ship, but after watching Star Trek: Generations (the only on screen source for the ship) no place in that movie did they call it an Excelsior class starship, also the Lakota in DS9 was never called an Excelsior Class, how do we know it is one? (since the Soyuz class and Miranda class starships look the same but are two separate classes) until it is stated on screen should it be listed as Excelsior class? Chasemarc (talk) 14:48, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. If we really want to be totally strict about such things, we probably shouldn't call it that. Even the fact that it is shown without modifications in other instances (the Enterprise-D conference room, for example) could be considered the less-visible part of a retcon instead of proof - with all the lengthy debates that would surely come up in such case. ;)
On the other hand, if we do that, we probably also shouldn't be calling all the different Nebula-variants "Nebula class", or the USS Odyssey a "Galaxy-class" or assume that any ship belongs to a specific class unless that was explicitly mentioned. Not sure if we want to go that route at the moment... -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:58, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Ships in Starfleet often carry the same class name despite significant changes both internal and cosmetic, such as the refit TMP USS Enterprise still being a Constitution-class ship despite it being a practically new ship from the keel up. Another example is the Miranda class itself, which is still a "Miranda-class" whether it has a "rollbar" (USS Reliant) or not (USS Saratoga). If we speculate, the Soyuz may be a wholly different class from the Miranda; more primitive, larger, smaller... the fact that it was retired soon after the disappearance of the Bozeman, while Mirandas with registry numbers into the 31xxx range are still in primary service in the TNG era. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 16:04, January 11, 2013 (UTC)


the refit TMP USS Enterprise was never called a Constitution-class ship, in fact TOS Enterprise was called Starship class per it's dedication plaque, the USS Enterprise-A WAS called a Constitution-class ship on blueprints seen in ST6, I always thought that the starship class was upgraded to Constitution-class, as for USS Odyssey being a "Galaxy-class" that ship looks identical to Galaxy class ships no extra parts or size changes Chasemarc (talk) 17:02, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong ship. The one I had in mind was the USS Venture, which had some of the "Future Enterprise" modifications. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 23:08, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not called a Constitution-class on-screen during TOS, but the name was on screen, even if not readable due to size. At any rate, TNG made canon mention of the class, so yes, both NCC-1701 (before and after TMP refit) and NCC-1701-A were canonically Constitution-class. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:22, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki