THIS IS PURE GUESS WORK
Intrepid Class:150
Akira Class:300
Excelsior:3000
Ambassordor:3900
Miranda:4500
Galaxy Class:1500
Soveriegn Class:10
Steamrunner Class:350
Sabre Class:350
Defiant Class:6
Oberth:50
Nova:500
Total=14616 starships
During Dominion War 2373-2376
Intrepid Class:95=55 lost
Akira Class:150=150 lost
Excelsior Class:1500=1500 lost
Ambassordor Class:1950=1950 lost
Miranda:2250=2250 lost
Galaxy Class:750=750 lost
Soveriegn:6=4 lost
Steamrunner Class:175:175 lost
Sabre Class:200=150 lost
Defiant Class:4=2 lost
Oberth:20=30 lost
Nova:400=100 lost
=7365 starships left
My Guess is that during the War Starfleet lost 50% of its fleet
------------------
It makes sense for Starfleet to have large numbers of the older classes of starship -- Miranda, Excelsior, Ambassador, and Oberth -- because these ships have been in production in most cases for over a hundred years (and the Ambassador probably at least 30 or 40 -- I'm not sure on the date on that one).
I don't think Starfleet has quite the numbers you give for the newer classes -- Sovereign, Nova, Defiant, etc. I certainly don't think there are 1500 Galaxy-Class ... I'm not certain if this story is true or "canon", but G.R. once said that there were twelve Galaxy-Class starships ... six in service, and six "dismantled" at various points across the Federation, where they could be assembled if needed. I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the Galaxy-Class was designed to be a small production run for a multi-roll starship, and that Starfleet didn't originally plan on building more than the original twelve. However, episodes of Deep Space Nine seem to hint that (if the 6-built, 6-waiting story is true) the Galaxy-Class proved versitile or useful enough to make Starfleet change their minds and continue production.
I sincerely doubt there are that many INTREPID-Class starships in service. I'd be boggled if more than 40 had even been built -- you know, it takes time to build a starship, and if VOYAGER was one of the first production starship off the assembly line, you're assuming a rate of 20-some new ships per year since. I honestly don't think Starfleet has that kind of resources to put out a new class of starship in that short of a time -- which is part of the reason why they rely on older class starships so friggin' much.
The number for the SOVEREIGN-Class is more realistic, so that might be very well. This of course begs the question of why the Enterprise-E -- one of very few of Starfleet's most powerful starship -- was off doing diplomatic missions instead of fighting the Dominion. Oh, well, maybe it was their off-rotation time?
Starfleet's got a hell of a lot more than 14,000 some starships. You've left off a ton of classes -- Renaissance, etc.
My note: all of this is conjecture. Thank you.
The United Federation of Planets consists of 150 member worlds, plus colonies, et al. Assuming that each member world has a population of 1 billion, and then further assuming that Starfleet makes up say 1% of the Federation Population (not an unreasonable assumption considering that from all appearances, Starfleet is the equivilant of the entire Federal gov't and runs EVERYTHING), then Starfleet has about 150 billion people in it. GOD DAMN.
I'd guesstimate Starfleet at having much closer to 40,000+ starships. Hey -- they've got a pretty big area to protect, and keep in mind, the UFP doesn't have borders like nations today do ... there are worlds within the UFP that aren't members, and worlds that are probably pretty far away from others that are members. Imagine if the US was the galaxy, and Maryland, Massachussets, North Carolina and North Dakota made up the Federation. None of those states border each other, so you'd need a lot of ships to protect those planets and the trading ships etc.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
I think that there are about 30-50 Galaxy class ships.
About the Defiant class:
Someone asked around about the number of Defiant class ships, after seeing 'Message in a Bottle'. The answer was about 40. So that's a semi-official count on those.
I think the amount of Intrepid class ships are in the dozens at most. And Sovereign class ships, I though it started with 4 of them, but I'm not sure.
------------------
"That's your plan? Wile E. Coyote would come up with a better plan than that!"
- Crighton, Farscape.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Although "guesswork" should be supported by at least SOME on-screen, or even book, information, which I doubt this is, so "pulled out of thin air" or "fanboy dream" would be more apt descriptive phrases.
------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
------------------
"That's your plan? Wile E. Coyote would come up with a better plan than that!"
- Crighton, Farscape.
With all the problems that the Defiant was speculated as having when it was first built, I'm surprised that there were even the four or five Defiant class ships seen in service.
Basically what I'm saying is that Darkstar's numbers for the amount of newer class ships in service are probably much less than what he guessed.
------------------
Star Trek: Legacy
Galaxy-class starships;
12 frames were built with 6 being fully constructed and the others were dismantled and spread across the Federation. 9 Were actually seen in 'Sacrifice of Angels', this comment is repeated on over a dozen web sites, and I counted them myself - originally missed one hiding in the background.
Names for Galaxy's are - USS Galaxy, NX/NCC-70637; USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-D; USS Yamato, NCC-715807; USS Challenger, NCC-71099; USS Odyssey, NCC-71832 & USS Venture, NCC-71854. I guess that these are the first 6 to be constructed.
Others (not confirmed & not seen in Star Trek, I think) - USS Kludy, NCC-71095; USS Trinculo, NCC-71867; USS Vel'dna, NCC-72406; USS Courageous, NCC-72579; & USS Indomitable, NCC-73462. I have not seen these and they've only been mentioned in one web site.
Intrepid-class starships;
USS Intrepid, NX/NCC-74600; USS Voyager, NCC-74656; USS Bellerephon, NCC-74762 & USS Saratoga. The Saratoga has yet to be given a negistry number & has not been seen (I think).
Estimate on the Nova-class is a bit big, I think anyway, as I think the ship looks like a scaled-down version of the Sovereign-class, so I'd guess (note the word 'guess' ) at a figure between 12 and 60 (ish).
Also, I feel that the size of the fleet is a bit big - 14,000+ vessels? Maybe if you were to include transports & freighters, but not just starships. I'd agree with the www.ditl.org site's estimate of about 9,000 - much more manageable considering the limited resources & people involved & the lifespan of the ships.
Hope this helps! I shall add more if requested or if I have any info that helps clarify any future discussions! Or you can email me and I'd be happy to reply!
Then they're not canon. If we added up all the fictional Galaxy Classes, we'd have more than the number of ships in the fleet. USS MANTRAIN NCC-77039. There, I made one up. Doesn't mean it's real.
The Saratoga has yet to be given a negistry number & has not been seen (I think).
Same as above. It's irrelevant.
Darkstar: Fickle with our 'Fuck You to Fucking Flare's, are we?
------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
------------------
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weaponry to make the difference.
Now, I'm a little bit torn. I tend to think 14,000 is a bit high, even though it would be a designer/engineer's dream. How would you name all of those ships?! I mean, hundreds of vessels in a class, it is almost unfathomable to my limited thinking. I think perhaps somewhere more along 10,000, maybe 11,000, is a bit more reasonable, if we're dealing with starships only.
Ultra Magnus: He's new, don't jump down his throat for God's sake! You'll scare him away!
P.S., this message has been edited, oh, say 3 billion times and this is the final edit. I just read the OTHER thread by Darkstar. For goodness sake! THAT was uncalled for. I am thoroughly disgusted.
[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited April 06, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited April 06, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited April 06, 2001).]
Welcome to the nerdiest place on earth. Next to LAN parties, that is.
------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."
-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.
Assuming the GR figure for Galaxy-class ships is correct, wehave 12 ships. out of that, the Enterprise, Yamoto, and Oddesey have been destroyed. That leaves nine. I highly doubt that the 9 ships seen in ONE shot of "Scrifice of Angels" is ALL the galaxy-class ships out there. Starfleet must have built more by now.
------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
akb1979 dragged it from the old post file. And welcome to Flare, akb1979.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
------------------
"I write messages on money.
It's my own form of social protest.
A letter printed on paper that no one will destroy.
Passed indiscriminantly across race, class, and gender lines
and written in the blood that keeps the beast alive
A quiet little hijacking on the way to the checkout counter.
and a federal crime.
I hope that someone will find my message one day when they really need it.
Like I do."
-Rage against the Machine
Anyways, to PsyLiam's comment: It is feasible to have only 9 Galaxy's as they are large vessels and take more time to build than smaller ships. There is also the issue of 'all the eggs in one basket'. Still, what with the war and all, there could very well be more. I seem to recall a Star Trek Voyager episode (involving the timeship Relativity), we were taken to a time before the pilot episode "Caretaker". There we saw Voyager in the drydock - with what looked like a Galaxy under contruction. However, it could have been a Nebula - they share a similar hull.
Ultra Magnus: no offence taken. I see and understand your point about canon stuff and how anyone could easily make up some numbers - loads of Star Trek Simming Groups have done this, for example - USS Discovery, Galaxy-class, NCC-62991. It's made up & is not a valid part of any equation, just made up for people's enjoyment. Besides, I got the impression that a forum like this was for discussion - so that we can identify what is right and what is wrong, and throw what is wrong and not 'canon' in the bin with the rest of the rubbish!
USS Trinculo - a model at a convention you say? That would explain it; I'm in the UK and sadly have never been to one. 
So, anyone know what the last registry number of Starfleet's latest vessel is? I've got NCC-75433 (USS Sao Paulo, renamed Defiant). Oh and how many ship are built per year? DITL says 100-402, what do you folks think? I'm interested for a Star Trek Simming Group who want a realistic number, and I'm the one who agree to come up with one! (It's a Sabre-class ship & the number of the Sabre herself would also be of tremendous help!)
Am I mad or am I mad? No, I just like Star Trek and believe in keeping to the facts.
Next comment please!
It's reasonable to assume that Starfleet builds a limited number of each new class they're introducing. This gives them time to see if the ship is being used as they intended, or somehow different. Do they really need the new class, or are other ships still effectively completing the duties? Is the ship not properly equipped for its mission? For example: you wouldn't send a Miranda-Class on a twenty-year deep space exploration mission beyond the Federation border.
Now, while the Enterprise never really got to do a lot of deep-space exploration, it's reasonable to assume that some of the other Galaxy-Class ships did. Starfleet likes research missions. They built more.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Yes, quite right. It could well be that Starfleet decided on a second, third and even forth production run of the Galaxy-class. They are very well suited for deep-space exploration missions, and would obviously like to keep their numbers up, what with losing 3. The Galaxy-class was also designed to replace the Oberth- and Excelsior-classes, so again more could be built. After all, how many Excelsior's and Oberth's are there in Starfleet? They must have had loads of production runs!
Fleet size issue - the Dominion had 2,800 ship waiting to travel through the wormhole. What percentage of their fleet was that?! If that was 1%, then the fleet as a whole would be 280,000!!! If it was 10%, that would still bring the fleet to 28,000 ships!!! So the estimates of 10,000+ I guess are justified if you think of that fact.All these numbers, my head is spinning! Hehe! Also, the lifespan of the ships is an issue. A ship with a lifespan of 100 years would have to be replace in 100 years (obviously). If Starfleet built 12 Galaxy's every year, then they could maintain a fleet of them in the size of 1,200. Nebula's are smaller so they could maintain a Nebula fleet of 1,800 or 2,400 plus. Prototypes could also very well be scrapped/mothballed if they prove useless - accounts for the reg numbers being 75433+. Also, what about the civilian ships built by Starfleet? I think I'll pause on this issue for now, or I'll be here for a month! Hehe!
I guess the main issue over Galaxy's is numbers - mmm, at a guess as to what others are saying, I'd place my money on a number between 24 and 48. Certainly not 1,500! :0
The debate continues!
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
--jacob
------------------
"Hi, my name's Locutus, and I'll be your assimilator tonight. Can I interest you in our specials? Super. Well, currently we're offering an arm-replacement tool with extra wiggly-waggly bits on, or, for the more daring among you, not one but two ocular replacements! Terrific. You want fries with that? Ohh, I'm sorry, I've just heard from the chef that fries are off - they're irrelevant, apparently."
-Vogon Poet, March 13, 2001
To build over a thousand Galaxys would take a very long time, resources, man power and space in the yards to do. If this was the case, then why worry about the Borg anyway? Build 5 Defiant for every Galaxy and you have a fleet that would be unstoppable. Of course this isn't true so...
By the way, Darkstar from viewing his latest posts and his 'supposed' last post is totally uncalled for and stupid. By the way he posts I would only guess that he's 12-14 years of age. Even though I am 17 years old, people calling me names doesn't bother me that much. He needs to grow up, fuck some girl/boy and then come back and look what he did from a different perspective.
I know this is General discussion on Star Trek not Darkstar, so... if we want to insult Darkstar and stuff we should do it on the Flameboard.
------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!
-All you base belong to infinity. -infinity11
ER: please be a little more patient when pressing the "Submit" Button, otherwise, you'll get the horror that has just happened here.
------------------
"In a completely unrelated news story, I have a date tomorrow night."
- Omega, in trying to explain why pigs are now flying, why Microsoft products are now working perfectly, hell freezing over, and George W Bush giving a flawless speech. 04/06/01, 12:17AM
quote:
Originally posted by JeffKardde:
Yes, indeedy it does ... (pissed 'cuz I just accidently deleted my very long post explaining why the Galaxy isn't replacing the Oberth or Excelsiors which have different missions, but nevermind)
So just out of curiosity what is your explaination as to why the Galaxy isn't replacing the Oberth or Excelsiors? Dispite the age of this post, I'd still be interested in knowing what you think JeffKardde.
According to the TNG TM, the Galaxies were indeed expected to replace the Oberths, as well as the Ambassadors. I don't think there is any merit in taking this as a literal truth, since obviously you cannot replace six hundred tiny Oberths with six hundred Galaxies in order to keep surveying six hundred planets at the same time. Small ships should be replaced by small ships, bowing to the wisdom of those who originally decided that a small ship is what is best for the given mission.
Instead of 1:1 replacing of old surveyors, I suspect the Galaxies were intended to alter the way Starfleet thinks of planetary surveys. A Galaxy would take over the mission of an aging Ambassador 1:1 all right; but instead of replacing one Oberth, it would replace ten or more Oberths at a time. How could it do that if it can't separate into ten pieces? Presumably by one of the following methods:
-a Galaxy would conduct a survey ten times as fast as an Oberth
-a Galaxy would have decisively longer scanning range, so it could survey things during transit, without having to stop and stalk them (like, say, orbit a planet or enter a nebula)
-a Galaxy would perform a mission that would make ship-based surveying wholly unnecessary (say, establish diplomatic relations with people who already have conducted a survey, or deploy shipless survey teams on location, or blast apart the planets so that there wouldn't be anything to survey)
So I see the line in the TNG TM more as proof that Starfleet wanted to get rid of the Oberth *mission* than as indication that Starfleet wanted to field a modern successor to the Oberth *ships*. By saying "Galaxy replaces aging Ambassador and Oberth", Starfleet actually means two things:
-Ambassadors and Oberths are aging, so they have to be replaced somehow
-Galaxy will merge the missions of these two classes and create a wholly new type of mission, thereby taking care of the aging problem without building actual successor ships
Timo Saloniemi
Also, if anything, I would speculate that the Nova-class is set to replace the Oberths.
I rest my case.
quote:
Originally posted by Dax:
This is bound to piss someone off but I tend to think that the Galaxy-class completely replaced the Ambassador-class i.e. there are no longer any Ambassadors in service (hence why they're never seen).Also, if anything, I would speculate that the Nova-class is set to replace the Oberths.
Well, you've not pissed me off but . . .
Just because the Galaxy-class has been introduced does not mean that the Ambassadors would be kicked out of service. They're still useful for something: colonist transportation, boarder patrol, cargo transfers, diplomatic missions, exploration (assuming that they have decent range and duration), defence . . . needless to say Starfleet would not scrap an entire class of ships if they could still be of use - especially considering how many ships were lost to the Dominion.
As for the Nova-class replacing the Oberth - a reasonable assumption, one I can't argue with.
1. The Ambassador-class was never produced in large quantities.
2. The last Ambassador built was launched well before the USS Galaxy was launched.
3. The Galaxy-class is superior to the Ambassadors in every respect (I suppose aesthetics is debatable 
)
The above tells me that when the Galaxy-class was introduced (in ~2360) there was already very few Ambassadors in service. Of course, Starfleet kept these vessels active - a ship doesn't have to be top of the line to be useful (all the Mirandas are good proof of this) - hence ships like the USS Excalibur. But lets say an Abassador is heavily damaged or due for refit - why bother when you can focus the resources on the completely superior Galaxy-class.
Conclusion: By 2375 all Ambassadors have either been destroyed or decommissioned.
Now c'mon, I must have pissed someone off by now. 
I am still pissed off free! Good arguement, one that I can't find any holes in - yet.
OK, a while back (when I first joined Flare and re-opened this topic) I found these diagrams on a website somewhere. I think that the diagrams pretty much explain themselves.
Anyways, as shown in the first diagram, the last Ambassador's registry was roughly NCC-27000 (NCC-26849 to be exact). The second diagram shows the registry and the date it was built (roughly). From the above registry number, the last Ambassador listed was built about 2340-2343. That's 20 years before the Galaxy and Enterprise-D were built.
quote:
Originally posted by Dax:
2. The last Ambassador built was launched well before the USS Galaxy was launched.
quote:
Originally posted by Dax:
1. The Ambassador-class was never produced in large quantities.
quote:
Originally posted by Dax:
3. The Galaxy-class is superior to the Ambassadors in every respect (I suppose aesthetics is debatable
So in a nutshell, Dax I cannot find a hole in your idea.
You know, I wasn't actually trying to piss anyone off? I just know that there are some out there that are quite defensive when it comes to the Ambassador-class. I once had a guy send me an abusive e-mail just because my website states that they're decommissioned.
Perhaps Starfleet found the vessels uneconomical, and its intend role of exploration and power projection filled by the more capable (though almost certainly more expensive) Galaxies and Nebulas. Some vessels remained to argument their more capable successors.
quote:
Originally posted by JeffKardde:
Yes, indeedy it does ... (pissed 'cuz I just accidently deleted my very long post explaining why the Galaxy isn't replacing the Oberth or Excelsiors which have different missions, but nevermind)
Grrr! JeffKardde, are you going to give us your very long explaination or not? I'd really like to hear it now that we've established the number of Ambassadors in service. Can we expect it any time soon please?
--Jonah
But the Ambassadors were similar in that they were a 'capital' or 'command' ship, and would therefore have had a significant fleet presence during their heyday. And I believe some do remain active to this day.
"The United Federation of Planets consists of 150 member worlds, plus colonies, et al. Assuming that each member world has a population of 1 billion, and then further assuming that Starfleet makes up say 1% of the Federation Population (not an unreasonable assumption considering that from all appearances, Starfleet is the equivilant of the entire Federal gov't and runs EVERYTHING), then Starfleet has about 150 billion people in it."
1% of 150 billion is 1.5 billion.
BTW, I would have thought there would be more than 1 billion per planet. I know our current population of ~6 billion is more than the ecosystem can realistically cope with in the long term, but I think 2-3 billion would be more realistic, personally.
It's also worth noting the coincidence of there being two batches of registries as well as two variants of the class. I speculate that all 10xxx Ambassadors were of the first variety (looking like the Ent-C) and all 26xxx Ambassadors were of the second variety (with the underslung Excelsior shuttlebay etc).
In contrast, the Excelsior class seems to have multiple batches of regos. The last batch appears to be 42xxx.
Now it goes without saying that 42xxx is a lot healthier than 26xxx. To put it simply, it tells me that Starfleet preferred to build Excelsiors long after the last Ambassador was launched. Why this is the case is uncertain. One basic theory I have is that the Ambassadors were never intended as a replacement for the Excelsiors, in the same way that the Sovereign class is not no replace the Galaxy. Instead, the Galaxy class has replaced the Ambassadors and eventually the Sovereign class will replace the Excelsiors.
And for all we know, the E-C was of the latter batch, as well. The Renaissance class ended its production run in 2337 with the Hokkaido -- which would almost certainly have had a registry higher than the next highest known Renaissance, the U.S.S. Hornet at NCC-45231. And the E-C wasn't even lost until 2344.
The Ambassador class is probably about fifty years old by the time of TNG, and construction would have ended approximately forty years before "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Redemption", and "Emissary". Thus, there's some other reason some Ambassadors look one way and some look another -- it ain't production batches...
Plus, I like to muddy things further by including Andy Probert's original painting as an indication of what the class looked like when first introduced c.2320s:
http://members.tripod.com/~DesignR/AmbasSHIP.html
--Jonah
Either the Art of Star Trek didn't know there was a more detailed picture, or Probert did a better drawing of his own back at a later point.
It's a matte painting of a ship the E-D was to rendezvous with in "Encounter at Farpoint" before the decision was made to go with a physical model. Andy created the design to show a roughly contemporary "stablemate" of the Galaxy class, to show there was more to starfleet than just what we'd seen to that point.
It is also the starting point Rick Sternbach and Greg Jein used to create the Enterprise-C.
--Jonah
I also recall this painting story being said for both the Hood in Farpoint, and the, er, thingy in The Naked Now. I thought the pic from the Art of Star Trek was a tiny Ambassador from the Naked Now.
--Jonah
P.S. Sorry I'm a little snippy right now. I just read the latest updates on "Broken Bow" and Enterprise in general...
--Jonah
We rarely saw or not at all the other fleets. An Ambassador or two may have been in one of those fleets.
--Jonah
I might be misremembering. But... eh, I dunno. Poo.
quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Not to mention we saw no Sovereigns either.--Jonah
Yes, but the Sovereign-class starship was relatively new at the time - probably only the initial 6 were in service with the other 6 still in production (like the Galaxy-class).
quote:
Originally posted by akb1979:Yes, but the Sovereign-class starship was relatively new at the time - probably only the initial 6 were in service with the other 6 still in production (like the Galaxy-class).
Right, and only 6 Galaxies were ever produced.
Seriously though, IIRC the real reason was just that they didn't wanna waste the Sovereign for the DS9 series, saving it only for the movies. We can make up any excuse we want for them, in fact, it's probably expected of us.
Why weren't there any visible Ambassadors during the Dominion War? Could be that by that time, all Ambassador class ships were mothballed, or re-assigned to lower threat areas (like the Klingon/Federation border). If they were all mothballed, it could be that it was simply uneconomical to re-activate them. For the manpower and resource put into reviving a single Ambassador, they might have been able to bring back maybe 3 or 4 Mirandas, or 1.5 Excelsior. The War being one of attrition, numbers might have mattered more than tonnage. If the Ambassadors were all assigned to low threat areas, they might have simply been out of position, and the Federation considered them not worth the effort of redeploying. If low threat areas means the Klingon/Federation border, the brief war between the two might have done much to thin their ranks.
I would think that the Ambassador, if active in the 2370's, would be engaged in areas where the fighting is the most intense. The region around DS9 seemed relatively quiet during the war.
And don't tell me it's a screw up because it's on the studio model and it's in the encyclopedia.
-and you're right, NCC -62136 is on the studio model, but perhaps that's an error too (they got the Prometheus horribly wrong after all....)
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: The Red Admiral ]
For me, studio model + encyclopedia reference = pretty damn definitive.
The Zhukov (Zuhkov) is NCC-63136
--jacob
Can someone add that to the FAQs??? It's been awhile since I looked at them, so it may be there....
--jacob
Regarding the discussion of the painting that appears as the front gatefold of The Art of Star Trek. Yes, it IS an Ambassador class, not a "early version" of the D as the book erroneously claims (Andy Probert himself crossed off the D and wrote C there when he signed my copy). He said the painting in question was produced because one script called for an Ambassor class starship to appear in the final shot of one 1st season episode, and he painted it for a matte shot (with blinking lights to be added in post) where the ship would be seen waiting in the distance as the E-D flew towards her. But, he said, TPTB decided to use a stock Escelsior model shot in its place.
I'll have to ask Andy about it sometime...but I suspect he may have added the planet and stars later. I also have to ask why the pylons seem to come directly off the hull, which would have given the ship one helluva wide ass!
It WAS done in the episode with the Binars. A matte painting of the D and the spacedock interior was used for shots where you could see the "gangway" attached to the docking port at the base of the D's neck.
Adn personally, I'd take a matte painting of a new ship than yet another kitbash of existing parts slung togethetr whilly nilly.
(***lets loose a string of mild curses under his breath***)