Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)

No. of Decks

So what IS the correct number of decks? -- Redge 16:59, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

If we would only know... Ottens 17:47, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

It could be argued that it's no more than 29. In Nemesis, when Remans finally meet with Starfleet, they do it on deck 09 (according to door signage). Therefore, Riker was fighting with Viceroy not on deck 29, but 9. (Clumsy Anonymous User ;))

Yes, there is one, the one that we see on the MSD on FC, INS and Nemesis. In there you can count 24 decks (like Picard said on FC). The only explanation that i can see for the 29 decks its because the warp nacelles were rise up a bit on Nemesis due the E-E post dominion war rift, and they are on a high position than the bridge, so, maybe the bridge its not longer the deck 1. About the deck 26, was said by lieutenant Howck, he maybe was new on the ship and with the hot of the battle, his mistake the decks.

On this link we can see the MSD of the E-E, count the decks. http://www.strekschematics.utvinternet.com/cutaways/orginalcut/orgentecutaway.jpg

And on this link we can see how the warp nacelles are more high than the bridge on the nemesis E-E http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/sovereign-oldnew.jpg

Speeds

I doubt we'll have to include the cruising and maximum speeds, since those are pretty much the same for all vessels of the class. Ottens 12:17, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)

• I don't believe that. Some crews might make slight modifications of their ship during the ship's service. The Enterprise-D and Voyager made countless modifications to enhance/improve ships systems. -- Ctwon

Sta

• I believe the warp speed is like a 'stock' number. It's the warp factor it can reach when fresh from drydock, much like the max speed of a car coming out of a dealership and you can change it after you buy it. Enzo Aquarius 02:35, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

What is the maximum speed of the E? People are saying Warp 8 because thats the fastest that was offically said in the movies. (Maximum warp was said but it was never said what that maximum was) I would think it would be at least the 3rd fastest ship in the fleet behind the Prometheus and Intrepid class ships, Can anyone help?--63.167.255.30 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Star Trek: Captain's Chair says the maximum speed of the EE is Warp 9.995, but this is non-canon of course. If I get time I'll reinstall it and verfiy. MikeWard1701 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ENTERPRISE NCC 1701-E CLOAK?

I COULD HAVE SWORN I READ SOMEWHERE THE ENTERPRISE-E HAD A CLOAKING DEVISE. IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE DESCRIPTION ON SOUNDS ON A TOY MODEL.

The Treaty of Algeron strictly forbids the use or development of a clocking device by the Federation. This was a major plot point of ENT: "These Are the Voyages..." and TNG: "The Pegasus". Also, though we've only seen it in the three movies, it's never used a cloaking device. -AJHalliwell 01:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Before the release of Star Trek: First Contact, it was published in an issue of Star Trek Monthly that the Enterprise-E would have a cloaking device. --Defiant | Talk 15:38, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The Defiant is the only starfleet ship with a cloaking device leagaly. The Enterprise E has never used or even talked about a cloak.– Enterprise E 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In some of the early promotional materials, it was said the E-E didn't have a cloaking device, but a "silent running" low-emissions mode that made the ship harder to detect. Nevertheless, a "cloaking sound" was incorporated into the Playmates replicas.Capt Christopher Donovan 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seventh Starship to bear the name?

I've replaced the line about Big double E being the seventh starship to bear the name, to eighth. This is due to the early Earth Starfleet Enterprise XCV (ring ship) being listed as a starship here on Memory Alpha. If this is wrong, please feel free to revert my edit back to the previous revision. I just assumed that this wasn't based on conjecture. If it is, someone obviously needs to edit that page as well. -AC84 08:42, 9 Nov 2005(PST)

We don't know if the ringship was a Starfleet vessel. Plus, it clashes with the "Xth starship to bear the name" lines on the dedication plaque, I think. -- Harry ^t 09:03, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The dedication plaque simply states it is the sixth (Federation) starship to bear the name. All the other plaques of past Enterprises state their (again, Federation) number accordingly. However, you do have a point as to it possibly not being Earth Starfleet. I don't know if those ships on display at the 601 Club are previous Starfleet vessels or not. Someone once said that they spotted a DY-100 (SS Botany Bay) class ship on display as well. If this is true, obviously the club simply honors past aeronautical achievements concerning space. Reverted edit but also fixed it so that XCV-330 isn't left out and ignored completely. --AC84 09:33, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

Dominion War?

I would love to know, canon wise, what exactly the Enterprise got up to during the war. In Insurrection they seemed unaware of the war. Warp One 16:01, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Picard stated before the party that the Federation was in talks with the Dominion, also the Sona creates Ketricel White for the Dominion, Insurrection takes place in the time frame of the war, but Starfleet thought, strangly that the FLAGSHIP of both the 7th fleet (at least the D was not sure about the E)and Starfleet/Federation might be better at hosting a new member of the Federation then fighting a war (Starfleet need better leaders, Picard should have taken the Adm. job at SF Acad. in year 1)

Yea, thats something I found really funny. The "flagship" of Starfleet was never seen (not even mentioned) during the Dominion War. The producers didn't want the Enterprise to take up all the screen time. The Defient is nothing compared to the Enterprise (as seen in ST:FC) - Plau 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Enterprise E is the strongest ship in starfleet and should have been at least shown in a DS9 episode. The battles in the dominion war would have gone a lot better if the flagship and Picard's crew where there.– Enterprise E 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep talk page comments related to the content of the article. See Help:Talk page for more. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tense?

The article bounces around between past tense and present tense. ("The Enterprise was a Sovereign-class starship. The Enterprise is 685m long.") Which is correct for an encyclopedic article describing something that takes place in a fictional future? --68.41.122.213 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, articles should be past tense. If you want to go through and make edits, it would be much appreciated. Jaz ^talk 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Commissioning date?

In ST: First Contact, Geordi LaForge states that the Enterprise-E has been in space for 'nearly a year now' or something to that effect- the key word being nearly. Picard lists the stardate at that point as 50893.5. If the commissioning date is correct, while it is possible that the ship didn't leave for a few days/weeks after that, would he really say 'nearly' a year now if it was essentially a year? the difference between commissioning date (SD 49827.5) and say one year before the log in First Contact, which assuming the usual 1000 units=1 year formula would be 49893.5, could be as much as a month. If they'd really been in space since even a month after the official commissioning date, wouldn't Geordi be inclined to make his point by saying 'a year now' instead of 'nearly a year now?'

Maybe i'm just nitpicking to a ridiculous degree....its a bit late here and my ramblings probably have more to do with semantics and space psychology than facts.

Post-Dominon War Refit?

I'm wondering at the validity of this excerpt from the article:

"Sometime after the end of the Dominion War, the Enterprise received a refit, increasing its offensive capabilities. Three extra aft facing photon torpedo tubes were added, along with two more forward facing tubes: a twin launcher aft of the bridge, a single launcher above the aft hangar deck, a single launcher at the base of the bridge terracing, and a single launcher near the bow. Additionally, four extra phaser arrays were added to the nacelle pylons."

How accurate is that statement, and what is it based on? Seems like speculation to me... (I don't remember it being referenced anywhere)-Ssaint04 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While I am not sure on the specifics, these are based on differences seen in the weapons loadout on screen between Insurrection and Nemesis. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

K! Thanks for the info! I'm off to squint at screencaps... - Ssaint04 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ive Never seen anything that makes the Refit of the EE canon. Ive also never seen anything that makes it real. Just cause they didnt use some of the phaser strips or torpedo launchers in Insurrection doesnt mean they werent there. Also about the nacelle comment. They ones from First contact and Nemesis look the same to me. is there some slight detail that i am missing? F-Bobby

You'd have to pay really close attention to the model to notice, but there is quite a change between Nemesis and Insurrection, One being the tube that apparently sits just above the shuttle bay actually clearly being added only after Nemesis. There was an article at the Daystrom institute about actual studio model changes between the movie. Apparently the phase layout was determined by actual physical phaser strips. Fullphaser 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed from DYK

...that according to production memos, the USS Enterprise-E was originally named the Monarch, but after the USS Enterprise-D was destroyed, the Monarch was renamed Enterprise? In a similar fashion, according to Gene Roddenberry, the USS Enterprise-A was supposedly renamed from Yorktown.

There's no info about this here. Find a source for this statement first... -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kilingon Crewmember??

The Article says "as well as a Kilingon and an Android." That doesn't ring true. Worf was only on temporary assignment on the enterprise for the 3 EE movies.

His status as "temporary assignment" was never stated, especially in the last movie. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He was not officially part of the crew in any of the films. In FC he was rescued from the Defiant, in Nemesis he was a passenger an in INsurection he was cut off by Picard when explaining why he was there. That Picard would question his presence indicates he was not assigned to the crew. --70.51.121.222 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When was he stated to be merely a "passenger" in Nemesis? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only was there no canon reason to think Worf wasn't an actual crew member in Nemesis, the non-canon, unofficial reasoning was something to the effect that he couldn't handle the life of a diplomat, and returned to Star Fleet. Whether you're talking about canon, or fanon... Worf was a member of the crew in Nemesis.– Hossrex 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering that the scene in which Worf says just that was actually filmed, that would be the official explanation. It's just non-canon since it never made it into the movie. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Worf was obviously there for the wedding, and just sort of got caught up into taging along on the mission. It's not that hard to figure out.

Registry

For clarification, this was "Epsilon," right? – 7th Tactical 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, the NCC-1701-E registry is never refered to as Epsilon in canon, and thus we can't make that assumption ;) - Enzo Aquarius 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The E most likely did not stand for Epsilon. if the letters stood for greek characters, the Enterprise J be in trouble- no Greek letters start with J Borguselinux 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

7th Tactical may be thinking of the scene in ST V when the crew is shuttling up to the Enterprise and a Starbase traffic controller says something like "Clear to deliver Captain Kirk and party to NCC-1701-'Alpha'." In that case "Alpha" is the phonetic alphabet version of "A". If the same phonetic alphabet is in use in the 24th century as is in use now, then EE would be NCC-1701-"Echo". – Mike the hammer 23:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering through to J: Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Federation Flagship

Which film stated that the 1701-E was the Federation flagship? The reference should be added if one was made. Wangry 07:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No film said it. The assumption is based on 1) that Geordi called the Enterprise-E the most advanced starship in the fleet and 2) the fact that the Enterprise-D was the flagship.

question the Enterprise is only one of the most advanced starships in the fleet, the Sovereign-class ships as a whole are the most advanced in the fleet? right?

It is known through the history of starfleet that the Enterprise has been the flagship of the federation. It is safe to say the Enterprise E is the federation flagship and there is no proof saying otherwise.– Enterprise E 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is memory alpha, and we don't make safe assumptions, we make ones we know to be true. There is no evidence that the Enterprise E is the flagship of the federation fleet. It would make sense, but there is no point at which she is held up as the flagship. I don't know if starfleet passes the flagship torch to ships after they are destroyed. Fullphaser 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding of the term flagship. In military terms, a flagship is the ship of a flag officer (admiral, commodore). This is a temporary appellation. If the admiral transfers to another ship, his old ship is no longer a flagship. The new one is. Note that the admiral has to command from the ship. Being aboard as a passenger doesn't make it his flagship. 'Flagship' could also be used to refer to the ship of the officer commanding a group of ships, even if that officer wasn't flag rank. This is a matter of convenience and is also temporary. When the group breaks up, there's no more flagship. Except on a few occasions, the Enterprises didn't serve as flagships in the military sense. Additionally, there's no military sense in saying a ship was "flagship of the Federation."

With regard to the use of the word flagship in a naval context, not all ships with the title flagship in modern navies necessarily have a flag officer onboard. For instance, in the Royal Navy one of the aircraft carriers is nominally the flagship of the fleet (and commanded by an officer with the rank of Captain) regardless of whether or not an admiral is actually onboard for a particular exercise. Whilst the flagship role rotates every couple of years, this does counter the argument that a flagship either has to be the lead ship in a formation or have a flag officer onboard. Additionally, as Starfleet is also a diplomatic and scientific organisation and not purely military, it could be seen as a vessel that carries the flag of the Federation (as opposed to a civilian registered Federation ship). Svetz Falhain

A more colloquial use of the word 'flagship' would refer to the ship as being noteworthy or exemplary or otherwise held in high regard. This is a public relations or marketing approach to the word and the one that more readily applies. "Flagship of the Federation" sounds like a propaganda title akin to "Hero of the Revolution." It might sound cool but it has no real significance.– StarFire209 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In the book Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Buried Age by Christopher L. Bennett, it states on page 407 "...due to its [the Enterprise-D] class and historic name, it was being considered a sort of 'flagship,' a symbol of Starfleet as a whole." This agrees StarFire209's comment about it being a "public relations or marketing approach the word", however I still believe that it should be included as Starfleet's flagship. – Nicolasavru 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

However, that book is considered non-canon here on MA/en. -- Sulfur 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Floor layout

My name is Fox Anderson. I am searching for the floor plans for all the decks of the sovereign class. A friend of mine is running a role playing game and the ship we are stationed on is the hypothetical USS Yamato which in his game was re-built as a sovereign class star ship with the registration number of NCC-71807-A. Having the floor plans would be of great help to the feel of the game and if someone happens to know where I can find and download them it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

75.217.210.47 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)