Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Re-evaluating the Excelsior-class

This is topic Re-evaluating the Excelsior-class in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1061.html

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Re-evaluating the Excelsior-class

Conventional wisdom has it that the USS Excelsior, having failed in its role as the first transwarp-capable starship, was refitted with a normal warp drive, and then used as the template for Starfleet's new class of heavy cruiser.

***

This has never really worked for me, for various reasons:-

1. The recent reports of there maybe being another Excelsior-class starship seen in Spacedock in one of the middle Original Cast movies - Star Trek III, IV or V? If the ship was intended as a testbed for Transwarp, why make more before it had even been properly tested?

- This is probably the most tenuous piece of evidence, BTW. I'm not doing these in any particular order, so bear with me!

2. The Dialogue in ST3: Kirk refers to it as the "Great Experiment" and Sulu says "they say she has Transwarp Drive." What are they saying here? It doesn't grammatically seem to mean Kirk refers to Transwarp as the great experiment.

3. Registries. EXTREMELY nebulous at the best of times, but consider - Constitutions built in the 2240s and 2250s have registries in the 1700's. The Miranda and Soyuz-classes appear in the 2260s/2270s, and have registries starting in the 1800's. Oberth-class? Let's not even go there!

The question to consider is which came first - the Miranda or the Constitution-refit? They share nacelle technology, among other things. I have a suspicion that, given the 1800-registries of the former, their tech was used to enhance the Constitutions and extend their operational life; it wasn't entirely successful given they barely lasted another 20 years while the Miranda-class is going strong a hundred years later. . .

4. Other factors: the people who conspired to block the Khitomer Peace Accords feared Starfleet would be mothballed. We don't know whether any such thing happened; instead we see a huge explosion in shipbuilding, from a hundred registries assigned per decade to a thousand per year, with vast diversification in types & designs of starship. Yet throughout it all the Excelsior (and the Miranda) remained in service.

***

I therefore postulate that the USS Excelsior, NX-2000, was built as the prototype for Starfleet's replacement for the Constitution-class heavy cruiser. Being judged successful, it was authorised to go into production, but even as the first models were having their keels laid down, the prototype, being essentially a flying breadboard, was dragooned into service for the Transwarp project. When it failed, it then underwent refit as a normal starship (and was re-labelled as NCC-2000).

- One thing I DON'T believe is that Transwarp failed just because Scott sabotaged the computer. Even if the damage he did caused a mammoth cascading systems failure, they would try again. And his name would be Mud in the fleet, forever!

While it's not beyond the bounds of probability that a failed prototype might go on to eclipse its infamy as a disastrous project testbed and find a successful second life as a ship of the line, it does seem unlikely.

Note: I don't know HOW the Enterprise-B/Lakota refits fit into all this. . . or the many other variants seen at Wolf 359 etc! And I don't think the former was the second Excelsior built either. . .

***

So, there. Hope y'all can follow that! Comments?

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Wow!

I don't think it's a second Excelsior in ST IV -- someone pointed that out in another thread. The whole argument being that it's a second Excelsior is that you can see the spacedock doors from two different angles, but that doesn't take into account that the spacedock has several sets of doors. It's more likely that is the Excelsior both times (no one mentions the other Constitution-Class that Kirk's shuttle flies past en-route to the 1701-A for the first time...::grumble, grumble:

My best guess for the two Excelsior-variants (that is, the Lakota/Ent-B and Excelsior, Hood, etc. is that...

a) Starfleet wanted to try and boost power, perhaps, to the original design? A limited number were built -- including the Enterprise-B and the Lakota -- before the new designs were discovered to be not that great of an asset, so production on the new variant was stopped.

b) Starfleet ASDB designed two different variants of the same class of ship to present for approval to the Federation council. For whatever reason, the Council voted to proceed with both variants, and the contracts were given to different shipyards once the Excelsior had been constructed and put through her "sea-trials". Perhaps the Excelsior variant somehow got to more shipyards (three yards producing those, and only one producing the Lakota variant) which might explain why we see a lot more of the original variants.

I agree that Scotty didn't sabotauge transwarp by tinkering with the engineering aboard the Excelsior. At the very most, the engineers had to figure out what went where and put it back together. Transwarp was a failure all by itself, Scotty just prevented Starfleet from figuring that out for a little while (either that, or after the Excelsior's failure out of spacedock, the Council scrapped the project then and there ... hey, it's possible).

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

That's not another Constitution, Jeff. There's no primary hull where there should be one on a Constitution. Nor is there a hull higher up as there would be if it were a Miranda. It's a mysterious nacelle that seems to just be floating there...

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

And also, nowhere have I seen any indication or evidence of other doors on (in?) Spacedock. We can see a good half of the upper slope in ST III, and there is only one set of doors in evidence that I can see. While there may or may not be doors diametrically opposed to the ones the Enterprise enters, there don't seem to be any at the other quadrants, which is what the visuals in ST IV would necessitate if it is just one Excelsior.

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I'm fairly certain you can see the connecting pylon. Although, we might just be seeing the rear-half of the nacelle ...

Ahem. The "door" theory was someone else's, not mine, I'm just trying to replicate their argument. Hopefully, they will post their argument here as I'm sure they can do it with more authority than I.

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

My views and comments
When I view starships and their construction period, I tend to base my opinions on more the structural components of the ships than the registries.
The warp nacelles are a good structural component to compare between known classes. There is canonical evidence that supports the existence of families, or types, of nacelles. In "One Little Ship", Capt. Sisko says the starship Defiant has type 7 nacelles.
Based on this, I have grouped starships by nacelles.

"A"-Daedalus
"B"-McQuarrie model
"C"-Constitution, two unknown classes (TOS)
"D"-Constitution refit, Miranda, Soyuz, Constellation, various variants
"E"-Oberth, Excelsior
"F"-Ambassador
"G"-Galaxy, Nebula, Freedom, Niagara, Challenger, Springfield, Danube
"H"-Cheyenne
"I"-Intrepid, Sovereign, Nova, Prometheus
"J"-Akira, Streamrunner
"K"-Streamrunner
"L"-Norway
"M"-Defiant (type 7)
(If my list needs modification, please let me know.)

With this information, I suggest that the Oberth Class is commissioned alongside the Excelsior Class in the 2280's. These two ships represent two different extremes-one scientific to explore deep space, one expected to defend the Federation.

Further, in the movie STIV, we see two nacelles. I believe these are referred to in the threads above, and confused as one. The first nacelle is seen in front of an Oberth Class ship. We see the forward portion. The second nacelle is seen seconds later. This nacelle seen from the inside of a travel pod is seen from the front. There is a pylon connecting the nacelle to an unseen major hull member. Using our imagination, we can say that these are one or two unknown classes.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

I'd amend that to separate Oberth and Excelsior. There are four or five designs with Oberth-like nacelles, but save for the Oberth itself, they are the not-quite-canonical Excelsior study models. The Excelsior nacelles in turn are pretty similar to those of the USS Centaur type, but have no other apparent sibling designs. I see in them no real similarities to the Oberth ones.

Oh, and Springfield has the same nacelles as Cheyenne. And the tiny Intrepid nacelles don't seem to resemble the Sovereign/Nova/Prometheus engines much (but are of course identical to those of the "Yeager class" kitbash).

I agree that Akira and Steamrunner nacelles could be the same, with minor cosmetic differences... Sabre nacelles could then be scaled-down versions from that family, much like the New Orleans (and Freedom?) nacelles are scaled-down Galaxy family members.

The theory of multiple spacedock doors was mine, and something pulled from the hat without any knowledge of whether the Spacedock model has multiple doors or is seen from sufficiently many angles to rule out the existence of three or four doors.

And my ST4 tape isn't widescreen, so all I can see is that single LN-64 nacelle they fly by - no Oberth, no second nacelle. Damn. Weird theory #74656 - perhaps the LN-64 without an obvious primary hull to accompany it belonged to a Constitution (or Belknap, or similar two-hull ship) that had performed a saucer separation when the Probe struck her?

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

When discussing the Excelsior as a Great Experiment, I think that the events of the decade should be considered in any consideration of the Excelsior Class's importance to Starfleet.

In Star Trek III, Capt. Kruge mentioned that the Federation and the Klingon Empire diplomats are brokering for a peaceful resolution to their mutual conflict. This event occured about 2286, using ST IV as a basis.

The Excelsior was built in this time of lessening tensions between the two powers. Her purpose may not have been to engage the Klingons, but exploration as in ST VI. (This may also help to explain the decommissioning of the Soyuz Class. This class could have been used in monitoring the Klingon borders. The Soyuz Class may have been retired as a token of peace to the Klingons. Just an idea. )

As for the Oberth, her engine nacelles indicate that the design was recently commissioned by ST III. Starship classes commissioned between 2240 and 2280 (Constellation, Constitution, Miranda, Soyuz) shared the same type of nacelles. If the Oberth came from this family, her nacelles would be similiar. They are not. There is another possibility.

The Oberth Class nacelles could be a bridge between the older nacelles of the family mentioned above and the Excelsior Class and her variants. For the Excelsior Class, the nacelles were improved considerably for the speeds needed for the new class.

Lineage

In other words, a direct lineage of Phoenix->Daedalus->Constitution->Constitution refit->Ambassador->Galaxy->Sovereign. The other groupings of ships don't appear to be on this direct lineage.

The dates are rough. The dates indicate the earliest that we know the nacelles to be in use.

From the evidence we have, Starfleet was content with a new nacelle design approximately every generation (25 years) from 2161 to 2245. There was a small spurt in the number of new nacelle designs from 2245 to 2300. Between 2300 and 2345, there appeared to be one new nacelle design-Ambassador. After 2345, there were
at least eight new nacelle designs. Some were improvements on older nacelle designs-Ambassador to Galaxy. Others were innovative-Defiant. Others were very strange-Norway.

This could indicate that Starfleet was experiencing tremendous technological growth as measured by the period before and the period after 2345.

One of the catalysts for this change could be the wars that Starfleet fought-the Border Wars, the war with the Klingons, and the war with the Dominion. War often brings about great change in technology-ex. WW II. Before 2345, the Federation had fought less wars in a longer span of time (approximately 184 years)-a war settled by the Axanar treaty, a possible war with the Romulans, a war with the Klingons.

Another catalyst could be the increase in new members to the Federation. New members bring new ideas. In 2267, the Federation had at least 35 member worlds ("Journey to Babel"). Over one hundred years later, the Federation had over 100 members. This meant the Federation had increase the membership list by at least 65 from 2267 to 2369. In 2273, the Federation had grown to over 150 members-an increase of at least 50 members in 4 years. This would average out to about 12.5 members per a year.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited February 27, 2001).]

Posted by BRUTUS on :

When Kirk refers to it as the great experiment, I think he's talking about the ship as a whole, spaceframe, engines, other technologies. I have no problem with there being a large number of excelsiors being developed...and this one using an experimental drive. It's kind of like how the Navy is planning on building a new fleet of ships and one is going to get a new electric propulsion to fine-tune the design for future ships...at least that's what I read...not sure what ship it was.

Also, I get the feeling when people mention that transwarp was a failed experiment they also think it was a flawed idea. Is there anything to say that transwarp isn't just a fancy nickname for a much faster and advanced warp drive....a technology that would lead to Ambassador and Galaxy class vessles? Remember that they had to redraw the warp charts. Thoughts?

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

I think when the dialouge was written, they meant that it was simply a Gazonga Warp Drive. Or perhaps even a try at something similar to slipstream. There's nothing to suggest that they thought they'd be everywhere at once when they engaged this thing.

I would suggest that, as the understanding of subspace grew, the term "transwarp" went from meaning whatever it meant on the Excelsior to meaning "everywhere at once" or the unreachable Warp 10.

------------------
"You don't tug on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off the ole' Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim."
Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

There's one thought structure I have entertained about the post-TOS, pre-ST2-6 era. Presumably the Organian peace treaty was in existence back in TOS, and definitely no such thing existed in ST4 and "There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives".

Perhaps the treaty never was actually enforced by the Organians after "Errand of Mercy", but both parties clung on to it because it gave them time to escalate. After all, there's nothing like an abortive war to reveal to you that you have not escalated enough... The terms of the Organian treaty may have precluded building of superlarge starships and certain kinds of technologies. And when the treaty finally was abandoned some time before ST4, perhaps Starfleet got into a building frenzy, trying out all the fantastic things it had been doodling during the idle years of Organian peace? Great ships and great experiments would have been built with little consideration, and many an embarrassing failure may have resulted.

The Excelsior class may have been burdened with this backlog of development, so that Starfleet wanted to cram everything they had dreamed up into this ship at once. Transwarp was one thing that did not work. Other aspects of the "Great Experiment" project did work, and the inertia of the program carried it over the initial disappointments. I would not wonder in the least if Starfleet had approved of the construction of multiple parallel Excelsior prototypes, calculating that the Klingons were doing the same with their backlog of innovations and that Starfleet could not afford to do anything less. When perhaps 85% of the Excelsior was useable, Starfleet sighed in relief and built two dozen ships more, omitting the useless 15% from them and gradually refitting it out of the initial batch.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Only twenty-four Excelsiors?

Another possibility for the E-B variant is that Starfleet wanted two classes of ship (one for defense purposes, the other for long-range explorations) but could only get approval for one. They found a way around that by designing the variant Excelsior-Class.

Thus, the Enterprise-B and the Lakota are designed for deep-space exploration programs, while the Excelsior and the Hood (and other Excelsior-Class of the 1st Variant were designed to fight.

Now, this is why the Excelsior was assigned to the mapping mission along the Klingon border. Starfleet wanted to show the flag, the Excelsior had the right equipment, viola! (Besides, the Variant II class is designed for deep-space exploration, so as to function for quite some time without access to a starbase, while the Excelsior would have greater access to Federation facilities)

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I would point out that the Excelsior computer stated "All speeds available through transwarp drive." That at least implies that we're talking "Threshold" transwarp.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Can I just say that the Excelsior's bridge in Star Trek III was probably the ugliest bridge I think I've ever seen? ICK! ICK!

(Of course, most of the movie bridges were pretty yicky -- Star Trek V and VI got good)

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

VI? Do you joke? Whoever was designing the sets was on the "after" end of an emergency brain-ectomy.

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

V and VI were the same sets, just a darker tone of paint on VI.

What's WRONG with that set, anyway?

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Not just 24 Excelsiors, of course - I think we saw more than that in a single episode in the latter half of DS9. But it would be a scale-up of sorts. First, a dozen or so Constitutions as the frontline ships. Then, two dozen or so Excelsiors (first batch with four-digit regos, then the rest with those 14000-range ones), with Constitutions and Constitution-sized ships being introduced in greater numbers as second-line ships (I like to believe in the "Ships of the Star Fleet" setup where there were soemthing like fifty Constitutions or downrated sister designs in the movie era). Then, more Excelsiors (in the 42000 range) to serve as the second-line ships while Ambassadors/Niagaras and later Nebulas/Galaxies become the frontline units.

It would be a bit much to assume that Starfleet would immediately jump from a fleet that thought of just 12 or so Constitutions with pride, to an uninterrupted prodution of the huge Excelsiors until their numbers reached the triple digits. Instead, mass production would probably only follow when the design no longer was the very top of the line.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I think that the Excelsior class was to built to replace the Enterprise class (sorry) as the front line ship. That would support the fact thatvarious Excelsiors have Enterprise class names (sorry again) I would only assume that the Enterprise classes was perhaps 1. a quick refit for the Constitution classes until the Excelsiors came into common veiw, 2. The Enteprise class was just too old and that a logical mass production oif these vessels were too wasteful when you can build the Excelsiors at the same rate. 3. the Excelsiors were thought of as a the newest ship and would make a complete fleet of Excelsiors.

3. is not realistic so...

------------------
Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

There's no such thing as the Enterprise-Class.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

I presume he means the Constitution-refit, which kinda muddles what he's trying to say in point (1). But I agree the refit didn't do much but prolong the life of the class until it was replaced by the Excelsior.

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Jeff... The Enterprise bridge in ST V was a completely different animal from ST VI. V was pretty much just a refurb of the existing set. VI on the other hand was too big for the bridge dome, the turbolifts were spaced too far to port and starboard... Mark? Can you elaborate?

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

The ST V and VI bridge sets *were* the same ones, rearranged and modified significantly. Between the two movies, they swapped the science and communications consoles with their respective turbolifts, such that the turbos are almost oppostie each other. The consoles themselves were redone so that they stuck out a little more, and had physical switches mixed in with the LCARS displays. They stripped the carpets off, reuphostered all the chairs, and repainted everything too. However, it *is* still the set. In these pics you can just make out the aft of the bridge:

http://services.tos.net//pics/st5/st5-chekov.jpg http://services.tos.net//pics/st5/st5-discovery.jpg
http://services.tos.net//pics/st6/st6-scotty4.gif http://services.tos.net//pics/st6/st6-treason.gif

Note the ribbed wall panelling on the aft wall - they're about the only thing that WASN'T changed on the set.

And in comparison, here's how it looked at the end of Star Trek IV. This is what you might be confused with - it's the same set used through the first movies, painted in white and with LCARS panels instead of switces, dials and knobs.
http://services.tos.net//pics/st4/st4-crew.gif

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Gods... The cosmetic differences between V and VI are so pronounced, I didn't even notice. But those same cosmetic differences piss me off no end. The bridge in V was gorgeous. The bridge in VI was ... for me ... too over-the-top, too militaristic, too cold and uncomfortable (even on the TOS bridge I'd rather pull an 8-hour watch than the VI bridge...), plus the "what were they thinking -- or were they?" with the lifts...

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I most certainly prefer the VI bridge. Who knows why they moved the turbolifts, maybe they now drop into a horizontal shaft and not a vertical shaft.

I dunno -- I just like the VI bridge better.

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

I prefer the VI bridge as well. The V edition was too "plastic fantastic" to me, and didn't really fit the movie era - Herman Zimmerman *did* want to present a sort of bridge between the TOS adn TNG eras, but in this case it was too much, too soon IMO. The V bridge was pretty featureless - all the stations looked identical, all of them were facing away from the captain, and it looked very generic for a ship like the Enterprise. In VI they added lots of details, like the individualized consoles for Spock and Uhura, darker colour palette, and more atmospheric lighting.

Not to say that the V bridge was BAD, it just didn't have any character to me. And not to say that the VI bridge didn't have any problems either: I really hated how they suddenly went back to physical switches after the IV-V bridges demonstrated LCARS. All those LED clocks didn't help any (nor that fact that no two seemed to have the same time!).

Ironically enough though, the same set eventually was restored to its plastic fantastic specs when it was presented to us as the bridge of the USS Prometheus almost a decade later. Which is an insanely popular vessel, for whatever reason.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I didn't really like the TOS bride or the STI-III brides as I thought they were too plain. I bet if I saw the bridge along with the refitted E-nil when they were first on screen I am sure that I would have different thoughts but since I wasn't even born then...

The STV bridge in my opinion was the best thing in that movie, everything was just plain shitty. STVI has that militeristic look but at least the look was maintained in Generations in the E-B.

------------------
Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

The TOS bridge too plain? How about, it set the standard and ever since then each new bridge has tried to better it, usually by adding more detail?

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I'd say the Enterprise-B bridge, but with the comfy, stabile chairs from the Defiant.
As a bridge for battle, the Defiant bridge. It's simply so effective.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His turnip not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited March 01, 2001).]

Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :

I kinda liked the E-B and E-A bridges...but I'm not looking forward to seeing the color scheme when the next TNG movie comes out.

------------------
"Oh for fuck's sake, stop your moaning,
If you fancy a threesome at this time of night, you can't get start getting choosey about which particular three!
-Queer As Folk, UK