Owing to a point I brought up about the Hermes Class in Designs, Artwork and Creativity, I stumbled across a point possibly worth discussing.
I stated that I had to slightly alter my Saladin mesh to create the Hermes, because the two are identical except for the Hermes lacks the Saladin's armaments. The point was: why was the Hermes Class given a classification unto itself? Why wasn't it simply a 'Saladin variant'. This is something I've been thinking over.
So I said "Perhaps Starfleet has radically changed its classification system, for it would seem to support the argument that in the 23rd century and before, even slight changes to a ship warranted a new classification, such as the Bonhomme Richard Class, etc"
Perhaps, as Topher suggested this might after all bring forward the evidence required to support the 'Enterprise Class' theory. Although I still have doubts about that.
In the 24th century there are certain ships within the same class which are just called 'variants', but which are the same class. Such the 5 Nebula variants, some quite different -yet they're all Nebula Class.
There'a also two Nova variants, two Ambassador variants, some horrid Intrepid variants, possibly two Springfield variants, two Excelsior variants, two Danubes, and multiple Miranda variants. Yet these are all classified as variants, not individual classes.
But, in the 23rd century it's slightly different...
Soyuz Class gets it's own name. If this had been in the 24th century it might well have been called just another Miranda variant, perhaps even if it was a one-off ship.
The smallest possible change to the Saladin and you have Hermes Class.
The smallest possible change to the Constitution and you have Bonhomme Richard Class (semi-canon).
There are also the DS9 kitbashes to consider, quite different from any class, yet they're called hybrid kitbashes, not individual classes, or 'sub classes'.
This is all perhaps worth thinking about, at least.
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I tend to agree with everything you've stated, with one small exception. The classifications of the DS9 kitbashes in the Tech Manual should be taken out, shat on, & flushed down the toilet. These ships are their own classes, not variants of other classes.
Of course, the DS9 kitbashes were never meant to be taken seriously, so it's a moot point anyway.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
yes.. if the moronic naming rules from DS9 TM were true, then the Nebula would be a 'Galaxy-variant' and the Miranda would be a 'Constitution-variant'.. those describe the design history of the ships, and not their actual capabilities, and therefore, individual class desginations are required
(i dont consider tham rules as much as 'general descriptions' which are easily dismissable)
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yeh I agree Dukhat, and Mike regarding these naming systems of the DS9 kitbashes. Starfleet must have some kind of formal classification for them, and not simply 'Constitution/Miranda variant,' and 'Ambassador/Excelsior variant', etc.
We just don't know what they are.
I think it would be safe to say they are either mass produced classes (unlikely in the Intrepid variants case), or a one-off 'sub-class'. Such as the 'Medusa Class', or 'Medusa type', and 'Curry type'.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:In the 24th century there are certain ships within the same class which are just called 'variants', but which are the same class. Such the 5 Nebula variants, some quite different -yet they're all Nebula Class.
There'a also two Nova variants, two Ambassador variants, some horrid Intrepid variants, possibly two Springfield variants, two Excelsior variants, two Danubes, and multiple Miranda variants. Yet these are all classified as variants, not individual classes.
I want to be anal here. I disagree on 5 Nebbie variants. I believe in 7. (1. Melbourne from battle wreckage 2. Melbourne as desktop model 3. Number two modified with weapons pod 4. Phoenix 5. Sutherland 6. Farragut 7. Honshu) There are no Intrepid variants at all! There are 4 Excelsior variants (1. Excelsior from ST3 2. Excelsior from ST6 3. Enterprise-B 4. Lakota) I believe in 5 Miranda variants (1. TOS-era variant 2. Reliant 3. Lantree 4. Saratoga 5. Modified number 2 [aft torp launchers replaced with additional impulse engines and possible relocation of aft torp launchers])
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hrm. Good argument, Mark. Except that as current naval systems go, a class applies more to the basic design and hull than the complete specifications. For example, there have been different "variants" of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with slightly altered specs, but they're all considered part of the Nimitz-class. (Look at the weapons specs in particular -- they changed the outfit a bit. What else was changed?) Or alternatively, check out the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and see how things differ there, too.
Now, this may not necessarily explain such radical changes like the TWO Nebula versions but since those are apparently exchangable pods, anyway. And the Mirandas are simpler alterations, anyway -- just the rollbar, which was removed for the modification of the Lantree to a cargo ship, for example.
Also, consider that the Constitution refit was a class-wide program -- therefore, since it was supposed to be a complete upgrade, it's still the Constitution-class.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Was it though? We've only ever seen two, and both of them were the Enterprise. There isn't a single word whispered anywhere about other Constitutions being refit that I am aware of. While I agree that the refit was most logically performed on every Constitution that had survived up to that point, this is not, strictly speaking, canon.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well... I'm loathe to bring it up since I don't like the idea of one being there, but there WAS the ST:III self-destruct model which was seen in the Wolf 359 wreckage scene. There's also the quasi-canon suggestion that the Enterprise-A was previously the Yorktown.
Both of these (admittedly nebulous) suggestions would imply that there were more of the refits done.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Ah, but, if we subscribe to the theory that the Enterprise-A was once the ship known as Yorktown, that would indicate that it too was refitted, just like the original Enterprise NCC 1701 in TMP. So that would mean there were at least two Constitution classes refitted.
(I'm saying here that the Yorktown was refitted as the Yorktown, and was only later, at the last moment renamed Enterprise-A)
Dat. I was referring to the DS9 Intrepid variants - the Yeager and Elkins... And what significant external differences were there between the original Excelsior, and the STVI Excelsior? And wasn't the Lakota simply upgraded weapons-wise?
I know what you're saying MM, but in a way you've confirmed this very argument - that the classification system did change at some point, because it seems that in the 23rd century Starfleet were giving individual class names to variants that only differed slightly from the original class.
Posted by Trimm (Member # 865) on :
Well, at least one, possibly two other refit Connies are seen in Spacedock in ST4 besides the Ent-A
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
IIRC the NX-2000 had only one impulse crystal on the top of the saucer and a couple of other greeblies on the saucer. The NCC-2000 had the two.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The bridge is also a lot smaller on the NCC-2000. And how was the Lakota different from the Enterprise B, apart from the decals?
I keep hearing about the Constitution varients seen in STIV, but I've never seen them. Anyone got any pics?
quote: believe in 5 Miranda variants (1. TOS-era variant
A what now?
quote: The smallest possible change to the Constitution and you have Bonhomme Richard Class (semi-canon).
Yup. It's as semi-cannon as the Enterprise-A having transwarp engines. In that it's not.
I'll go now.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The TOS-era Miranda is conjecture, but I base it on the fact that the earliest known Mirandas had numbers in the 1800s which indicate they could have been around during the TOS era.
The Lakota model was not changed from it's E-B appearance, but given that we saw phasers come from banks which don't appear on the model, I'm guessing those banks were added on to the refit Lakota received, thus another variant on the Excelsior design.
I don't call the Elkins and the Yeager as Intrepid variants solely because they were not design modifications or alterations to the parent class. They are simply separate classes based on using parts from the Intrepid class. I don't call a Nebbie a Galaxy variant nor call a Miranda a Connie variant.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The NX-2000 also had the semicircular module with large bay windows in the alcove between the warp engine mount and the stern cargo bay. The STVI version had a smaller, wedge-shaped module in its place.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: The Lakota model was not changed from it's E-B appearance, but given that we saw phasers come from banks which don't appear on the model, I'm guessing those banks were added on to the refit Lakota received, thus another variant on the Excelsior design.
Sorry, not buying this logic. We never saw the Enterprise-B fire it's phasers, so I don't see why you are assuming it didn't have them in the same places as the Lakota. After all, if they were invisible on the Lakota, they could just as easily be invisible on the Enterprise-B.
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I keep hearing about the Constitution variants seen in STIV, but I've never seen them. Anyone got any pics?
There weren't any Constitution variants in STIV. When Kirk & Co. take the travelpod ride through Spacedock, they first fly over a Constitution-type nacelle. Only the top of this nacelle can be seen. Then, in the very next scene, you see the end of another Connie-type nacelle on the viewscreen. That's it. That's all you see. For all we know, those nacelles are attached to another class of ship entirely. (Of course, the reason why everyone says that they're Connies is because the Connie model was the one most likely used for these shots. But that doesn't preclude that in the "real" Trek universe, they weren't another type of ship. Since you never see the actual ship they're attached to, you can believe whatever you want.)
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes, true enough. And it would be nice to think these were separate classes entirely...
Psy- what about the Connie variant model in Brahms' lab in 'Booby Trap'? This doesn't necessarily mean it was a real class of ship that went into production, but this is on some level canon - this design, as a model appeared on screen.
Dat- I only called the Yeager and Elkins Intrepid variants because I have no better term to use. They are obviously kitbash variants, based around the superstructure of an Intrepid. This is why they're generally known as Intrepid variants, there's no other collective noun to describe them.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I keep hearing about the Constitution varients seen in STIV, but I've never seen them. Anyone got any pics?
Have a look at this thread.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: (I'm saying here that the Yorktown was refitted as the Yorktown, and was only later, at the last moment renamed Enterprise-A)
Right, that's what I was trying to say. Just didn't explicitly say that the Yorktown was first refit around the time of TMP, and then only renamed in TVH.
Part of the whole point of a starship in service is that it receives important refits and upgrades during its service life. So small variations of ships can't really be considered major separations in classification.
The Excelsior -- First, the NX-2000 was nothing more than a prototype. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that certain features could be refitted before the class went into full production. That's not a class variant.
The Lakota -- Plenty of naval ships and probably starships have received special weapons upgrades. The Lakota's might have been more extensive, but that doesn't classify it as a variant, IMO.
The Nebulas -- The Honshu/Phoenix/Sutherland versions are all the same, except for the mission pod and a couple of other minor details. There's nothing to really set it apart. Even the Phoenix had nothing different aside from the pod and supports -- and that's simple enough to change. (As for the other versions, well, I don't care much, since those were in the background. That's getting into the realm of "anal-retentive," IMO. No offense, guys. Y'all argue about it if you want. I just don't want to get into that part. )
The Mirandas -- We saw two variations here -- first was the Lantree, which makes perfect sense for a ship that was refitted as a transport. An old, slow transport wouldn't need the extra weight of the torpedo module and pulse phaser cannons, especially in the mostly-peaceful pre-TNG era. As for the Saratoga, well, I really don't know. It might have been a once-off refit attempt, or some kind of specialized AWACS design. But the overall design of the ship was never changed, and so it should still be considered the same class.
You've got to consider here that we have ONE quasi-official instance of two class names for apparently very minor design changes (Saladin/Hermes), and a small assortment of useless non-canon names, like Bonhomme Richard, which IMO are complete crap.
On the other hand, we have long-term and consistent designations of class based on the general layout and outfit specifications, rather than the nitty-gritty details.
Here's an example -- the Enterprise-D received brand-new warp core in "Phantasms." Does that mean that there's a new "Enterprise Subclass" of the Galaxy Class because the ENT got a specialized upgrade? No!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Wasn't the whole Yorktown-theory contradicted by one of Scotty's line in TFF?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Can't we all forget about TFF? The only thing good about that movie was the bridge IMO.
Lakota: The Lakota was most likely either a regular Excelsior class or the E-B varient. In either case it could be true. Simple reasoning is that the E-B with all those extra equipment could have been added there after finding out for some reason that the Excelsior design has some flaws/weaknesses. Then newer ships with newer technology ironed that out so the E-B vairent design is no longer needed. Then the Lakota with her massive weapons refit, to make the ship more durable added those features. On the other hand, all if could have been is a weapons refit. Which is far more easier to do than to do what I suggested above.
Throughout naval history, naval powers always refitted, swapped, replaced, and gutted out their ships for new weapons, equipment, armor, and so on. Wooden ships would be cut down, plated over with iron plates to become some sort of ironclad. WWI rea ships would be gutted out, hulls extended, machinery replaced, to make the ship equal or more efficient than before. When these refits are done, normally their classes remain the same. Look at the Tennessee, New Mexico, and Colorado classes. Each ship is different from their sisters. Would that make them a different class? No.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Can't we all forget about TFF?
I won't because I liked the movie. Had a lot of remarkable scenes and quotes.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I understand and concur with just everything that's been said.
I stated at the beginning that it seemed as though there was a possibility that the Starfleet classing system was changed - so that minor, or even major refit operations didn't warrant sub-class classifications any more. Because to me, with this current 24th century system, which I certainly favour, is at odds with what has gone before, ie Saladin/Hermes, and to some extent Miranda/Soyuz.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: I won't because I liked the movie. Had a lot of remarkable scenes and quotes.
Indeed, but unfortunatly it didn't have any plot or much regard for technical accuracy.
I agree though, it had some of the best and funniest character scenes out of all the movies. Presumably this was Shatner's doing.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Either case nothing, the Lakota was obviously the same Excelsior refit as the Enterprise B.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral:
Psy- what about the Connie variant model in Brahms' lab in 'Booby Trap'? This doesn't necessarily mean it was a real class of ship that went into production, but this is on some level canon - this design, as a model appeared on screen.
I haven't seen "Booby Trap" for a while (which I'm quite thankful for, actually), but I really, really, really hope you're not talking about the AMT Enterprise-A model with the engines stuck on backwards. Because that would just be too stupid to contemplate.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I am indeed talking about that model. The nacelles aren't backwards, but sideways, rotated 90 degrees, much like the Curry.
I'm not saying this was an actual class at all, but it exists there in the scene for a reason.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Let's not forget the Yellowstone-class runabout, which doesn't look very different from the Danube-class runabout. (While some of the events in the episode that featured it were not "real", they *were* realistic with respect to the "real" Star Trek universe. We must not ignore this distinction.)
In general, the realities of Star Trek production call for models to be reused against the wishes of writers who like to dream up new classes. This requires a system where minor differences are sufficient to change a ship's class. Another example are B'rel and K'vort birds-of-prey, which appear to be identical on the outside, or the D-12 and contemporary birds-of-prey, which also appear to be identical.
Boris
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I haven't seen "Booby Trap" for a while (which I'm quite thankful for, actually)
what the fuck? that episode is awesome.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
If, by, "Awesome," you mean "Not Awesome."
Or is it "Less Awesome?" I can never tell.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
no, in this case awesome means awesome. keep in mind that when i said "that episode is awesome!", i meant exlcluding the whole "geordi can't fuck a real woman so he goes after a fake one" stuff. so, basically cut half of the episode out of the middle. the first quarter and last quarter of the episode are awesome. i'm abig archaeology buff, so the whole promellian battlecruiser stuff rocks. as does seing picard as the helmsman.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I might describe episodes such as 'BoBW' and 'AGT' as awesome, but not Booby Trap. It was an entertaining, and well constructed episode, I enjoyed it, but it wasn't awesome - except Brahms' lab at Utopia Planitia. It was our first glimpse at the time, and that was awesome.
Very good point about the Yellowstone. I'd forgotten that. But being a 24th century ship it counts against the original theory.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: I'm not saying this was an actual class at all, but it exists there in the scene for a reason.
Because whoever threw the model together mucked up/was drunk?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Because it's on screen therefor canon. Unless there's a new rule that only cool looking designs displayed on screen is considered canon, then we might was well get into a discussion on what's cool and what's not.
Sol System, aside from real world behind the scenes Star Trek special effects what's your reason for having a ship with NCC-42XXX whereas previous ships with lower registry is a standard Excelsior? Why haven't we seen the others as well?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Eh, I'm not sure about anyone else, but when they mentioned the Lakota as being refitted, and then showed it later on as an E-B variant, I figured that it used to be a regular Excelsior class ship, and was refitted to E-B specs.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
With a weapons refit of course, unless you think the E-B could take on the Defiant with a chance of winning.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I think you're trying to over complicate it... the Lakota was built as an E-B variant... then was refit before the episode it was featured in with modern weaponry and defenses.
If Starfleet is still using the Excelsior version of the class and their aren't that many of the E-B version, the easiest explaination is that the E-B was an attempt to make the Excelsior Class better at being a "Warp Drive Ship" remember that the Excelsior Class was originally a "Transwarp Drive Ship." Unfortunately for all that work it seems that the E-B didn't make any significant improvements on the design so both were essentially kept but the Excelsior [because it takes less materials] was the prefered version. It just so happened that the "good" Admiral was able to get the Lakota, which just happened to be an E-B version, to be upgraded.
Which brings up another question, what is the difference between refit and upgrade? Is refit something as dramatic as the TOS E to the Movie E? Or is it simply the Movie E to the Movie E-A [even though they are different ships, many people seem to think, and so do I, that the E-A was a renamed ship that had just gone through a refit/upgrade, it wasn't a brand new ship]. Was the E-B a refit or an upgrade? Was the Lakota a refit or an upgrade? Did the Ambassador Class get a refit or an upgrade? What about the Galaxy Class [first the E-D's warp core, then the phaser strips on the Venture, and let's not forget that dark neck]?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'd divide these things into overhauls, upgrades and refits, in that order of severity.
An overhaul IMHO means refurbishment of existing systems, with only minor swaps of subsystems if any. It certainly won't show on the ship's exterior.
An upgrade may feature external changes, since it can take the form of addition of major new equipment. It may also be a mere overhaul, but a mere overhaul can't be an appearance-altering upgrade, if you catch my drift.
A refit always fits something all-new into the ship. By old naval traditions, it may be that ships actually get decommissioned for the duration of a refit, and recommissioned at completion. That would explain some late commissioning stardates in elderly-looking or low-registered ships... A ship certainly wouldn't get decommissioned for a mere overhaul. Still, even a major refit need not be externally visible.
Or then these terms are interchangeable and you can forget all my ramblings...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The name 'refit' already suggests taking the ship apart and literally re-fit the pieces. An upgrade would probably not involve any major work on the spaceframe. So the Venture batch of Galaxies and the darknecks (possibly some kind of ablative armor?) would be upgrades to the Galaxy class. An upgrade can also be built from scratch, while a refit means actually taking a ship and modifying it. At least, that's what I think.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Timo makes an interesting point about the Navy decommissioning ships for the duration of a refit. Which might suggest that Kirk's Enterprise was decommissioned at the end of the five-year mission, and then recommissioned at the start of TMP.
I'm not up on all my naval traditions; is there some equivalent to Starfleet's dedication plaques on ships of the US Navy and other seagoing vessels? That might help set the definition of commissioning dates.
Even better... there were ships like the USS Sutherland which were commissioned only a few weeks before "Redemption, Part II" according to the set's dedication plaque. I've always assumed that the Sutherland was a newly-built ship. But what if it were actually a ship that had been decommissioned for a major refit or repair -- for instance, as a ship salvaged after Wolf 359? Heck, that might even explain the differing registry numbers of the USS Ahwahnee...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I am not sure why it is up to me to justify the Lakota. It looked like the Enterprise B just because it did works fine as far as I am concerned.
Posted by BJ_O (Member # 858) on :
Just some minor real world terminology, from the aerospace industry anyway.
When an aircraft is upgraded with new technology, better structures, whatever, no specific term is used. I think it depends on the businessspeak of the day as to what it's called, be it upgrade, improvement, overhaul, etc. This applies only to new builds. Occasionally, so many new systems are changed that it warrants a new designation, i.e. F/A-18A to F/A-18C, or 737-200 to 737-300.
When a certain capability has to be put in all aircraft, a "retrofit" has to be performed on the one that have already been built.
I'm not sure about the current naval terminologies, but considering some of the overlap in specialties, I can't imaging it being much different, especially since many companies (Northrop being a prime example) deal with both.
B.J.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: no, in this case awesome means awesome. keep in mind that when i said "that episode is awesome!", i meant exlcluding the whole "geordi can't fuck a real woman so he goes after a fake one" stuff. so, basically cut half of the episode out of the middle. the first quarter and last quarter of the episode are awesome.
So, it's awesome apart from 50% of the episode which was shit?
quote: Because it's on screen therefor canon. Unless there's a new rule that only cool looking designs displayed on screen is considered canon, then we might was well get into a discussion on what's cool and what's not.
Oh, this is stupid beyond all laws of god and man. Following this logic, every single runabout on DS9 had the registry of NCC-72452, Data was a Lieutenant Junior Grade just before "Encounter at Farpoint", and a parrot with Gene Roddenberry's head was involved in secret Starfleet orders.
There's paying attention to what is on screen, and then blindly believing that all mistakes are intentionally put there by TPTB to mean something.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Myself, I'm kinda fond of the idea that the E-B variant made the Excelsior into more of an exploratory cruiser, pushing Starfleet towards the explorer-type ship. The E-B was primarily on a mission of exploration. It could be that the Lakota, too, was one of these Excelsior-explorers, and that the reason we didn't see any E-B variants in TNG/DS9 because the Excelsiors we did see were all inner-Federation ferry ships, like the Hood.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Making the E-B variant a limited-production sub-class designed for a specific type of mission would also explain why we haven't seen them more often. Realistically speaking, if the E-B's specs represented a significant upgrade to the capabilites of the class, why would Starfleet have built any old-model Excelsiors after her? Having a handful of the class retooled to do one type of job while the rest of their sisters remain general-purpose vessels makes sense to me.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:So, it's awesome apart from 50% of the episode which was shit?
yes, but the awesome part was awesome enough to make the episode awesome despite the 50% that was shit.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: Making the E-B variant a limited-production sub-class designed for a specific type of mission would also explain why we haven't seen them more often. Realistically speaking, if the E-B's specs represented a significant upgrade to the capabilites of the class, why would Starfleet have built any old-model Excelsiors after her? Having a handful of the class retooled to do one type of job while the rest of their sisters remain general-purpose vessels makes sense to me.
yeah, that works for me too. the E-B subclass could be like the Soyuz class (i always thing of it as the "Soyuz subclass", personally). it had a specific mission, and very few of the subclass were made compred to the original. in fact, as has been speculated about the Soyuz class, perhaps most of the E-B subclass were refitted into standard ships once the specific mission qualities it had been built with were no longer needed. perhaps the Lakota was just never refit as a standard Excelsior at the time because of budget reasons, or whatever.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
In reply to Woodside Kid:
Yeah, if the E-B was to be an upgrade then why didn't it stay around? I believe it's because they tried to fix something that wasn't broke and it ended up not improving anything at all.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks:
quote:So, it's awesome apart from 50% of the episode which was shit?
yes, but the awesome part was awesome enough to make the episode awesome despite the 50% that was shit.
Sorry, I've looked this up in the Oxford Concise English Dictionary, and your definition of "awesome episode" - an episode that is 50% shit, and 50% okay, but it's shows UTOPIA PLANITIA - is not in there.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree, perhaps the E-B subclass is perhaps a 'retooled' Excelsior design actively utlized to do something important enough to warrent a few different design changes and to be in production in the 42xxx era.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Want to run by me why you don't think it was possible for the Lakota to have been a regular Excelsior at one point and refitted to E-B specs?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
to me, that doesn't make sense if the lakota's refit during the late 24th century made it look like that. during the dominion war, the tech level difference would preclude refits looking exactly like a late 23rd century subclass . i guess it would be possible that it was upgraded after the E-B was made during the late 23rd.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Ok, let's look at this way: Why would the Lakota be refitted from the regualr Excelsior class to the E-B subclass type which hasn't been seen since 2296?
The way I see it is of two possible theories:
1. Lakota was was a E-B subclass already, only a few are made form some reason or another, and the only big upgrade was her weapons and perhaps defensive systems.
2. The Lakota is a regular Excelsior class refitted to E-B subclass probably because of something unique to the E-B subclass that the regular Excelsior class does not have.
In either case you can probably make up your own reasons why she is upgraded to E-B specs, or a new weapons upgrade.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'd say that both the Ent-B and Lakota was always built to that appearance, not later modified from the std Excelsior design. The Lakota just happened to get an upgrade to her tactical systems.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
This is what I believe:
The Lakota was a regular Excelsior class vessel, built in the 2340's.
After 30 years, some equipment needed to be swapped out with newer equipment. The admiralty decided to upgrade it to E-B specs so that it could perform exploratory missions. Leyton got a hold of it and got the weapons upgraded.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
why would an upgrade in the 2370's look the same as a ship class from the 2290's? that makes no sense to me. we also have no evidence that excelsiors were built that late into the 24th century. i think that the Lakota started it's career in that configuration (maybe being built as late as 2315 or 20), and it will end it's career in that configuration.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Why did Excelsiors in that time look the same as in the 2280s? Why did supposedly newbuild Mirandas look the same as the Reliant?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
who said anything about new built mirandas? no such thing.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Okay, then. Let's say it's 2320, and Mirandas are still being built with the same external appearance as when they were first seen. How come they don't look like the ships of the time, ie Ambassador? I think the same thing applies here. Excelsior class ships could still be refit to E-B specs in the 24th century. The added sections on the stardrive are enhanced sensor suites, and maybe in the 24th C the saucer extensions actually are shuttlebays.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Externally yes they look the same. I doubt internally they would be be still relying on 23rd century equipment without relying on some piece of 24th century equipment to supplement it.
Here's the thing, if you can upgrade a ship from the standard design to a new design, wouldn't you go for the most advanced you can go? I mean if Starfleet can use nearly 70 year old designs (imgaine us using 70 year old designs in our future or refitting of our modern ships/aircraft) in a large upgrade meant to make that ship far more powerful and efficient than before, then that 70 year old design must be incredibly efficient to be used in any time.
The only times I can think of that you can use that to compare to is during the Wooden Sailing ship era. A ship from 1600 can still do battle against a ship from 1700 with a chance to win. The onyl difference between those two ships is perhaps the gun design and the shape of the hull. Nothing else.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Wow. Remind me never to travel back in time with you.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Well, in the multicultural Trek universe, *somebody* will always be at the tech level against which Mirandas reign supreme... Why waste a Galaxy class vessel against those weanies?
If R&D costs are a major part of shipbuilding, then it makes sense to keep producing ships in bulk to centuries-old blueprints. All you really have to change is the upholstery. Your communicators already can interface with alien comm systems they have never even heard of before, so there's no need to upgrade your datalinks in any way - a Miranda can speak with an Intrepid just fine. Your fuel is pure deuterium/antideuterium and apparently has been since ancient times, so no compatibility problems there. And spares can be replicated, so you needn't worry about them going out of production.
Starships simply are the ultimate in both forward and backward compatibility.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
On the basic term. Basically the way I see it is that the only serious non-reality behind the scenes reason for any of the ships to look different from one another as well as being somewhat streamlined, is the warp factor stresses involved. Lets' face it, today's physics predict that at near and at the speed of light, we become pure energy. Most of these ships are traveling thousand times that, so there must be some stress involved. What I am getting at, is that as the ships get faster, the ships probably have to be designed accordingly. Also if you can refit a ship to go from top warp speed from Warp 7 to Warp 9, then obviously some stuff on the ship will need to be changed to handle those speeds. Same goes for weapons and shields.
Besides, unless the aliens you are talking of are stupid or just plain new to the intergalactic scene, I dobut anyone with a technology level around the equivilant would want to pick a fight with the Federation.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix:
I mean if Starfleet can use nearly 70 year old designs (imgaine us using 70 year old designs in our future or refitting of our modern ships/aircraft)
Yes. Imagine that. Good thing the B-52 is never used anymore, eh?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Still 20 years to go...
The funny thing about the B-52 is that her main role still is one of carpet-bombing, the thing she was built for. (With a side order of one-way missions of dropping free-fall nukes, but she wasn't all that good in that one. And standoff missile-firing and anti-ship mining came and went - today, the submarines are tasked with that again.)
There are all sorts of success stories in veteran aviation, but they usually involve a major change in role halfway through the career. I just can't *believe* the things they keep flying for firefighting, for example.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Even so, a B-52 is identical to earlier variants in external appearance only. Under the hood, it's a whole new bird.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I think the B-52 is scheduled to be around for another 20 years (or at least another 10)..
And externally it looks the same, but internally it's different? So, again, it's obviously not something that can be compared to the Miranda and Excelsior classes is it? No. Not at all.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Your feeble attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding, that was the same analogy I tried to use.
And if you say anything smart, I'll slap you silly.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Then we have a problem.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: Even so, a B-52 is identical to earlier variants in external appearance only. Under the hood, it's a whole new bird.
Exactly! The TNG:TM goes into a little bit of detail regarding potential refit/upgrade cycles towards the end of the book. Components are constantly replaced as they wear out, and when new, better technology -- like a nondestructive warp core -- come out, they add those in.
I'd bet that such things would be true with the Miranda and Excelsior classes, among others. Perhaps not all spaceframe designs are capable of lasting so long, but if Starfleet finds a design that works, then they would keep using it for several decades at least.
Also remember that almost all of the Mirandas and Excelsiors seen in TNG and DS9 were not 70+ years old. They had NCC-3xxxx and NCC-4xxxx numbers, which implies an approximate commission/launch date of 2330 or so. (That's a VERY vague estimate, of course.)
Liam mentioned the B-52 bomber, and that's a great example. Consider also the carrier USS Enterprise, which was launched in 1961 and probably will stay in service for at least another 15 or 20 years at least. The Nimitz-class nuclear carriers were first launched in 1975, and they're still building them today... albeit with some minor changes to the design, I'll bet. (The Navy Fact File on carriers says that some of the Nimitz-class carriers carry different armament. I'd bet that there are other variations as well.)
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
id be willing to bet there are some newer Miranda and Excelsior variants we havent seen with 24th century improvements like different nacelles, and maybe lifepod hatches. it wouldve been very efective in explaining this if theyd added features like that to the DW era Miranda model, since it was CGI and doing so wouldve been simple, and able to be undone should they need the model in its original state. oh well.
and if the second wave Mirandasand Excelsiors were built in the mid-to-early 24th, then they would definitely be built to the same design but with a stronger spaceframe based on current building methods. basically ,as long as the ships understructure were upgraded, i see no reason why the ships should have any trouble using modern power systems and reaching accelerations like newer designs, considering the very bones of the ship could be several times more powerful than when the original ships of the class were built.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There's a picture at Ex Astris Scientia that shows Doug "NX designer" Drexler's opinions on the matter Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Also, for what it's worth, the new Miranda and Excelsior's are different in one fairly important way; their engines glow blue all the time, rather than only glowing when the ships are at warp. Since newer craft also have permentantly glowing engines, a connection seems obvious.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
That and some of the new Mirandas, if not all, have had the aft torp launchers replaced with additional impulse engines and the aft launchers possibly relocated.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or removed altogether.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Didn't the B-52 start life with propeller engines and later got upgraded with jet engines?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I don't think so, I think you might be thinking of the B-47. Not sure though.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm almost certain that the B-52 has always had jet engines. I don't think props would work very well for an aircraft of that size, range and payload.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I know ST is supposed to be so egalitarian and all, but I suspect the justification is very similar to the shows' producers reason in reality; namely a largely economic one. Even with replicator-tech, these ships would be exorbitantly expensive to construct. (Labor and facilities intensive) I'm certain it would cost far more to lay a new keel and construct a brand new ship than it would to take an older one (and perhaps its crew) and upgrade. If you're looking for fleet support it wouldn't make sense to mothball a perfectly good starship simply because the new hotness can run circles around it. So maybe they have a bunch of perfectly good Mirandas and Excelsiors knocking around and maybe a Dr. Carol Marcus hell-bent on a new research mission convices them to restore an old hull which they weren't even using really to do her thing. So maybe some older ships come out with later registries than you'd expect. Not even Kirk could say no to Bibi.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The B-52 and the B-47 were both built as all-jet bombers from the very beginning. Their immediate predecessor, the gargantuanohumungous B-36, had some jets added when the six twin pusher props weren't considered enough, but she didn't go all-jet.
She was one of the aircraft considered for nuclear propulsion, though - a B-36 actually flew with an active fission reactor aboard, whereas the C-5 Galaxies merely had a space reserved for a reactor. Would have made things easier for the Osamas of this world - no need to target a nuclear plant with a big jet, when you have both in the same package.
The added impulse glow on the Mirandas and the Galaxies in DS9 is probably comparable to the auxiliary jets installed on the B-36, B-50, C-117 and whatnot - a minimal-cost performance-increasing measure to make ships better compatible with each other and with the latest threat speeds. The ships need not have been otherwise altered.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I disbelieve that those were impulse engines on those Mirandas.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I waited for untold aeons for the podded, supposedly exchangeable assembly to show some signs of actually being exchangeable for something else useful, and not just removable. I will NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE AWAY MY DREAM!
Dang. Mods no longer have the power to remove messages. So I'll go for the next best thing...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Internacine conflicts are forbidden by the Custodian!
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I disbelieve that those were impulse engines on those Mirandas.
Can I ask why?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Possibly for the same reasons that I do. They are almost certainly an SFX goof. And goofs != canon.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Umm... Why not? TOS still remains canon, AFAIK.
I hate to waste good opportunities just because somebody may not quite have "intended" something. If we see a starship hanging from a wire, then surely the ship has deployed a long-range wire antenna. If a phaser beam fires anywhere but the direction the actor is pointing the prop at, then this is clear evidence of an automated targeting system of some sort. And if an ages-old ship type suddenly sports extra engines...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Umm... Why not? TOS still remains canon, AFAIK.
I didn't say TOS. I said effects goofs.
I mean, do you really think that the crew continuosly modified the design of the original Enterprise every single episode?
Kirk: I want vents on the nacelles.
*crew changed*
Kirk: No, wait, sperical projections!
*crew changed*
Kirk: No, wait, vents again!
Kor: I will kill you.
Kirk: Just a second Kor. I want to change the size of our navigational deflector first.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Actually, that sounds fine with me.
Redshirt #1 down in engineering:
"Plasma reaching purge limit again."
Redshirt #2:
"Don't bother *me* with it. Ya do know what ya supposed to do?"
"I said don't bother me with it. Can't think w'out moving ya lips, man?"
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
i also theorize the nacelles had some type of moving part apparatus depending on what kind of power situation they were in.. is as good an explanation as any, i guess
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Can I ask why?
1.) The rollbar strikes me as a singularly bad place to put a big impulse engine.
2.) Rear torpedo coverage is a good thing, more good than whatever benefits I can imagine from swapping them out in favor of an engine. (And why not just upgrade the existing one?)
3.) The notion just doesn't sit well with my sense of aesthetics. It is unpretty.
And about the glow? Well, it wouldn't be the first torpedo launcher we've seen that glows during its pre-firing activities. Nor would it be the first time that a visual effects crew has lit a starship oddly.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Ummm... it has eben shown that the Miranda class can other things than the torpedo roll bar. Perhaps one of them is a large impulse pod.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It's been shown that the Miranda can get along just fine without the rollbar, yes. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but we've never seen a different module there that I recall. Even the supposed impulse engines were just, as far as I know, the rear tubes of the launcher lit like an engine.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Look, they have shown that they can fly fine without one and with some other weird objects connected at the sides (Saratoga). What gives you the impression that a second impulse engine is not feasible? It's probably not that hard to gut out the pod and place impulse engines inside to make her faster or whatever. If you think it's because the pylons are too small to allow for some connections to power them, well how does the torpedoes and pahsers mounted on the roll bar get powered?
I haven't seen the pictures in awhile. I am not arguing that there are in fact impulse engines in the pcitrues we see, I am arguing for the fact it is possible.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The impulse engines could even have their own power source installed with them; it wouldn't be as powerful as a main reactor but it wouldn't need to be. One question though; why install them in the first place? (well, apart from to make the ship go faster obviously). Why would a Miranda need to go faster?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
To keep up with those mackin' Galaxies in the battles?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh yes, the Galaxies were just tearing up the place speed-wise in SofA.
quote: i also theorize the nacelles had some type of moving part apparatus depending on what kind of power situation they were in.. is as good an explanation as any, i guess
Okay. Now explain why the bridge module kept changing sizes, why the deflector dish kept changing sizes, and why spikes appeared and disappeared from the fronts of the nacelles.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Oh yes, the Galaxies were just tearing up the place speed-wise in SofA.
quote: i also theorize the nacelles had some type of moving part apparatus depending on what kind of power situation they were in.. is as good an explanation as any, i guess
Okay. Now explain why the bridge module kept changing sizes, why the deflector dish kept changing sizes, and why spikes appeared and disappeared from the fronts of the nacelles.
magic? because the great bird of the galaxy decreed it? you might as well ask how voyager managed to stay so pretty during its little jaunt in the delta quadrant.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The dish was just a big umbrella anyway. One of the easiest objects to design for variable diameter. "Long-range scans, Mr Spock." "Aye, sir. Refocusing main FTL sensors by adjusting reflector geometry. Retracting focus boom." "I asked for long-range scans, not a bloody operator's manual!" The same goes for the rods sticking out of the ramscoops. And luckily, we don't have to explain the change in bridge profile, since that doesn't show up in the mixed stock material.
It would seem to me that the greatest weakness of an old starship type in fleet action would be its lack of speed. If the ship has weak weapons, no matter: it still has weapons that increase the fleet's overall firepower. If it has weak shields, no matter: it dies a little sooner than other ships, but still increases the fleet's overall resilience to fire by offering another shielded target. But if it has weak engines, it *slows down the entire fleet*.
Speed in actual combat would not matter very much. Impulse speed during the dash from a supposed "warp threshold" to the planet you are striking at is crucial to your surprise factor. (Warp speed during the deployment run from the starbase to the target system would also be crucial to surprise value, if not for the fact that the Dominion can observe all fleet movements across interstellar ranges with ease. So you can only achieve limited tactical surprise in-system, not interstellar surprise.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Oh yes, the Galaxies were just tearing up the place speed-wise in SofA.
They had all three impulse engines running. This could be why the Mirandas had an extra impulse engine.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
As much as I want to lay into really anal need to to give a real reason for EVERY SFX goof rather than just saying 'they fucked up', I'll leave it for now and go back to the Galaxy thing.
Didn't Geordi say in "Relics" that impulse technology has remained largely unchanged in 70 years?
Impulse technology seems to be to be a bit of a dead end. The ships can't go faster than 1/4 light speed, they accellerate pretty rapidly anyway. All impulse engines seem pretty equal. When doing maneovours, do the ships just use their impulse engines, or do thrusters come into play? Seems to be that they'd be more important in a battle.
Two things that do bug me. Kirk's "Warp point oh five" in TMP. That can be argued though as saying that Starfleet hadn't established an impulse limit of .25c. But that leeds to the other problem. If the reason starships don't go faster than 1/4 lightspeed is because if time dilation effects, isn't it pretty amazing that every civilised species seems to do the same thing?
And if you're in a battle, why would you care about time dialation anyway? Why not (assuming that you can't go to warp) just crank it up to .99c? Thanks to time dialation, not only will you be really fast, but you'll arrive far quicker than it would appear to your ship.
quote: They had all three impulse engines running. This could be why the Mirandas had an extra impulse engine.
According to the tech manual, at full impulse the Galaxy class has always had all three engines running. This is not a new thing.
And I meant generally. Look at the shot where the Galaxies open fire on the Galor-class ships. They're moving pretty slowly. In fact, the only real time we see Galaxies moving with any speed is when Sisko first engaged the fleet, and even then all the ships are moving together (and at a speed that you wouldn't describe as "blisteringly fast" either).
I'm with Simon. A rear torpedo launcher seems much more useful, strategically, than an extra impulse engines.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The problem with having impulse engines in the Miranda torpedo pod isn't the power supply; its the amount of torque the engines would generate on the support struts. The mounts on the pod appear able to handle the small amount of recoil torpedo launches would generate, but they don't look anywhere near being strong enough to keep the pod from being torn off the hull by an impulse engine mount running at normal power levels. And if you're not going to run it at normal power levels, why put an engine in the pod in the first place?
BTW, PsyLiam, the tech manual does not say that all three impulse engines are running when a Galaxy is at full impulse. It says "High impulse operations, specifically above 0.75c, may require added power from the Saucer Module engines." And Geordi's line in "Relics" was that impulse engine design hadn't changed much in the past 200 years, IIRC.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hmm. That would seem to imply that at full impulse (or in emergencies) they DO travel faster than .025c.
Crazy.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
By a factor of ten, to be precise.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Thinking about it, I don't suppose time dialation would be much of a problem over the small time span of a big ship fight. And I doubt that most of the ships would have even gotten up to full speed, what with all the manourvering they had to do.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Just to clearify.
Maximum Impulse: .75c Full Impulse: .25c Half Impulse: .125c Quarter Impulse: .0625
---As for limited speed in fleet action, I would think that all ships are capable of at least Warp 9 in 2370's... I don't think they would try to push anything above that.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Impulse Engine [the Fusion generator] has not changed in 200 years from it's basic design. But there is an added mechanism, the Space-Time Driver Coil which is only ~55 years old by 2370's. --- I feel that the Space-Time Driver Coil, is a new mechanism, but it's function is not new. Before the Ambassador Class they used the Warp Field Coils to produce a symmetrical X millicochrane subspace field that reduced ship's mass and thus made it easier to move. [The only reason to use a Driver Coil is to reduce wear and tear on the field coils.]
Yadda, yadda, yadda---
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Speed in actual combat would not matter very much. Impulse speed during the dash from a supposed "warp threshold" to the planet you are striking at is crucial to your surprise factor. (Warp speed during the deployment run from the starbase to the target system would also be crucial to surprise value, if not for the fact that the Dominion can observe all fleet movements across interstellar ranges with ease. So you can only achieve limited tactical surprise in-system, not interstellar surprise.)
It's been far too long since the last "You're the Admiral!" scenario. Remember those wonderful deployment plans?
Consider that if a combat fleet is being sent from Starbase 375 to retake Deep Space Nine, a distance of, say 10 light years. The Defiant could make Warp 9.5. Uprated Galaxies, according to the DS9:TM, could make Warp 9.9. And the Mirandas would be poking along at Warp 8.
Now, unless you want to split your fleet up, you've got to restrict all ships to the lowest common speed. And when you're talking about a difference from Warp 8 to Warp 9, that's a hell of a lot of speed. Not only would it take twice as long to reach the battlefield, but it also gives the enemy twice as much time to prepare a defense -- or worse, a counterattack.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
but since those are apparently exchangable pods, anyway. And the Mirandas are simpler alterations, anyway -- just the rollbar, which was removed for the modification of the Lantree to a cargo ship, for example.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)