Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B)
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
Contents |
[edit] Harriman, Jr.? (obsolete)
- Regarding "Captain John Harriman, jr."
Where did the Jnr come from ? I don't remember this. Alex Peckover 09:49, Jun 10, 2004 (CEST)
[edit] Tasha and alternate timeline (obsolete)
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)
[edit] Registry
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).
[edit] Drydock
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.
[edit] Active?
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)
[edit] renamed
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)
[edit] Paradise Lost (obsolete)
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)
[edit] Sol Defended
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)
[edit] "Thirty years since an Enteprise under command of Kirk"
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)
