Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: on the Enterprise
Message-ID: <273@tilt.FUN>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 18:32:31 EST
Article-I.D.: tilt.273
Posted: Thu Apr 18 18:32:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 01:36:46 EST
References: <335@unm-cvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: chenr@tilt.UUCP (Ray Chen)
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 70
Summary: 

In article <335@unm-cvax.UUCP> cwayne@unm-cvax.UUCP (Chris Wayne) writes:
>>Yes.  I think the Enterprise was the only U.S. carrier in the Pacific Fleet to
>>survive all of WWII. 
>
>     Not quite.  The sister to the "Lady Lex", USS Saratoga CV-3 survived the 
>     war only to be lost at Bikini.  At least she went down like her sister.
>     And don't forget the USS Ranger CV(L)-4, the first US carrier to be built
>     from the keel up as a carrier.

A quibble.  Ranger was in the Atlantic Fleet.  I'd forgotten if Saratoga
had been sunk by the end of the war or not.  I do know she spent a lot of
her time in dry dock.  That's why I said "I think...".

>>
>>The ST Enterprise bit it taking on a
>>Klingon scout ship, so maybe the name won't get re-used for a while...
>
>     Yes but,  When the Essex class Lexington was commissioned, her captain
>     was not the same captain that commanded the CV-2 Lexington!  The same
>     was true for the Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp.  Also remember that there
>     was a war on!

Read more carefully please.  I never said anything about who was going
command the thing.

>     According to this then, she was the pride of the fleet over 12 years ago 
>     and upgraded 9 years ago.  This also shows that she is at least 28 years
>     old and more likely over 35.  (allow +/- 1 year lee way) 

So, what?  My point was that while old, she had been completely upgraded
to new technology standards and was essentially a new ship.  About the
only thing that didn't change was the basic shape of the hull.  Why then
be ready to junk her only a few years later?

>     Remember the old, now defunct pre-Excelsior class dreadnaughts?
>     Three warp engines, had names like USS Star Empire and Koncordium?
>     where are they now?

Two possibilities.  Either they were or were not upgraded.  Assume they
weren't.  If we assume that the basic design of the Federation class
dreadnought hull (i.e. the shape) was sound, this would seem to imply
that the Constitution-class cruiser refit proved to a disappointment
somehow.  However, the purpose of the Enterprise refit was to see if the
refit was worth it.  Therefore, it can be assumed that the Constitution
class cruisers were refitted only if the Enterprise refit performed as
expected.

From this line of reasoning, I see three possible ST universes.  One in
which the Enterprise refit was a failure (not cost-effective).  So it's
cheaper to build new ships than to upgrade well-designed old-tech ships.
In that case, I can see people being willing to junk the Enterprise.

The second universe is one in which the refit was a success in which case
they went ahead and refit the rest of the Constitution class ships and
attempted to refit the Federation class dreadnoughts.  In all probability,
since the Constitution class refit was successful the Federation class
refit will also be successful.  In that case, why are people willing
to junk the lead ship of the class (the Enterprise) only few years
later?

The third universe is one in which the Enterprise refit was successful,
but technology advanced to the point where when the rest of the Consitution
class ships were upgraded, they were essentially a different class ship
than the Enterprise and the Enterprise fell victim to the "prototype"
syndrome.

Comments?

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr