He's posted his latest review of Azati Prime.

Unfortunately, he completely fails to take into account the extreme variation in the data. The standard deviation is a whopping 16.3 years. As I understand it (and I probably don't given how much I can't get my head around stats), the standard deviation is essentially an error on the mean. This means that the mean could be as high as 41.7 years between launches. That means the new mean established in this episode is consistent with what we already know.

Either way, his point is really looking for reasons to moan. He should give B&B credit. It's not often Enterprise is actually consistent with what's gone before.

I think the point he's trying to make is that apparently Enterprise ships were built less often in the future than in the past, which would not be consistent with an expanding Federation that presumably would need more and more vessels as time progressed.

I don't think I agree with him, though. They could have built more ships in the future, but given them other names.
I'm not a big Trek buff, so I have a question: must one Enterprise ship be destroyed before the next one is built?

It's still pretty thin. Maybe Starfleet got sick of Enterprise. I would be by the time of E. Besides, maybe not all Enterprise's have 1701 registries.