This is topic Durations of Starship Service in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2038.html

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
This idea was sparked by reading Rick Sternbach's article on the Constellation-class that was posted in another thread. At the end of that article, it was said that the remaining Constellation-class could be kept in service through 2435. (Specifically, over 150 years after commissioning.)

This strikes me as an extremely unusual assertion to make, for several reasons. First, the original Constitution-class (including its refit) apparently had a service life of approximately 50 to 60 years. Then there's the Galaxy-class, which was built for a 100-year hull life as mentioned in the TNG:TM. Finally, a vast majority of the movie-era starships (mainly Excelsior, Miranda, and Constellation) have been portrayed as old, slow, and nearing obsolescence. So just what makes the Stargazer different?

Furthermore, I wonder just how much a starship can really be upgraded during its lifetime. Certainly refits and added equipment can add to its usefulness over time, especially considering the cutting edge of technology continually advances. I recall someone mentioning that the carrier USS Enterprise had completely new nuclear reactors installed in the early 1980's, so this kind of replacement is certainly believable for any starship as well.

However, the simple design and appearance of starships also seems to imply an important factor in their capabilities. Starships have become ever faster, and the hull frames have become sleeker and more streamlined. (The cursed NX-01 will be ignored for this treatise.) The TNG:TM also suggested that streamlining had something to do with a ship's speed and efficiency.

Therefore, I'm not sure if I believe the implication that Starfleet could simply install a more powerful warp core, swap out some warp coils, and end up with an old Excelsior-class starship capable of keeping up with an Intrepid or a Sovereign.

Then there's the fact that a starship's internal volume must be allocated and occupied by certain equipment for certain purposes. The Galaxy-class had an abundance of space available, but earlier starships certainly didn't have this luxury. Therefore, something akin to a complete remake of the ship would be required to bring a 23rd century starship up to the standards of 2375. The Constitution-class certainly benefitted from this overhaul in TMP and beyond (apparently, anyway), but there's no real evidence of the Excelsior, the Miranda, or any others having gone through a similar refit. (I will admit that there's nothing to disprove a complete internal refit that kept the outer hull mainly the same, though.)

It's always been my opinion that Starfleet was on the verge of a huge turnover of ships in its fleet around the time of the Dominion War. (Yes, production costs in TNG and DS9 were the main cause here, but I'm talking about inside the Trek Universe! ) As the Dominion War went on, we started seeing more and more of the newer ships present in the battles, and in more prominent roles. Not to mention the fact that the Excelsior and Miranda workhorses got their asses handed to them on a consistent basis throughout the war. Therefore, it's been my opinion that Starfleet was planning on retiring a large number of the older starships and replacing them with more modern classes wholesale. What's the point of keeping starships around that can't keep up with the technology level? Obviously this would be a drawn out process and they wouldn't just get rid of all the old ships at once; but they WOULD start phasing out the old ships at a greater rate than before.

But Sternbach's comment at the end of the article seems to turn all of these ideas on their heads. What do you guys think about it?

(Obviously one idea is to simply ignore that one comment. I'm looking for ideas to reconcile the information first before completely rejecting it.)
 

---

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
I don't know about seeing older Excelsiors and Mirandas getting consistently beaten up during the Dominion War. No one's done it, but I feel if someone were to account for every ship seen or heard destroyed suring DS9's last two seasons, it probably wouldn't be so lopsided. While I don't remember offahnd seeing any Steamrunner or Sabre class ship blowing up, it's probably happened...

Mark
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Wait a minute. The Technical Database article says the Valkyrie and Stargazer are in the Museum, but are maintained to be redeployed when necessary. So they aren't in active service, and they have very little to endure inside this subsurface complex, and that's why they are considered to be effective and reliable until at least 2435. That's how I read it anyway.

What is interesting, though, is that a ship in a Museum still gets regular upgrades. And also... when exactly would it be necessary to revive an old ship like this? Starfleet would have to be pretty desperate to push these two old hulls into service in the 25th century.
 

---

Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
Yes, the article was very clear in pointing out that only the museum-kept Stargazer would last this long:

"With periodic upgrades and structural maintenance, the U.S.S. Stargazer is predicted to remain a reliable and effective starship until at least 2435, 150 years after its construction."
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Getting back to the original topic of starship duration times, IMHO I believe Star Trek (and to an extent, Michael Okuda & Rick Sternbach) has really screwed this up, based on the registry numbers of the ships we've seen. I'm basing this, of course, on the hypothesis that registry numbers are chronological; if they aren't, there's be no argument from me.

Anyway, once TNG premiered, TPTB had to recycle old movie models because the budget wouldn't allow any more new ships other than the Ent-D. For the first season, the Excelsior and Grissom models were used, without their names or registries changed (the movie Enterprise model would have been used as well, if Greg Jein hadn't decided to build a different model for the Stargazer, but that's another story). It was believable that these ships could still be on active duty; however being of the Kirk-era, it was also taken for granted that these were older ships probably being phased out by the Galaxy generation.

IIRC, the first movie model ever to be used with a new name & reg was the Lantree, a reuse of the Reliant model, but with a different yet similar low 4-digit registry. Again, this was believable because by the late 24th century, this Kirk-era ship had been relegated to transport duty.

However, all of a sudden Okuda decides to fill displays and relabel movie-era models with ridiculously high registries (3XXXX for Mirandas, 4xxxx for Excelsiors, 5XXXX for Oberths), and then proceed to give a more advanced ship a registry even lower than all of these (1XXXX & 2XXXX for Ambassadors!). Then, by DS9 we see a myriad of Excelsiors & Mirandas on active duty fighting a war against a superior power (this was only because the CGI guys made the models because they had the physical model to go by).

None of this makes sense realistically. As someone earlier said, even technological upgrades can only go so far, especially when the exterior of the ship never changes! Okuda should have given every Excelsior, Miranda & Oberth a lower registry than he did, IMO.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Yes, the article was very clear in pointing out that only the museum-kept Stargazer would last this long..."

It didn't say the SG was the only one that could last that long. They only specified the SG because that's the ship the article was about.

"Therefore, I'm not sure if I believe the implication that Starfleet could simply install a more powerful warp core, swap out some warp coils, and end up with an old Excelsior-class starship capable of keeping up with an Intrepid or a Sovereign."

Who said anything about keeping up w/ Intrepids and Sovereigns? They said the ship would still be useable, not top-of-the-line.
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
Who said anything about keeping up w/ Intrepids and Sovereigns? They said the ship would still be useable, not top-of-the-line.

---

quote:

---

Even the Constellation NCC-1974 herself was going to DS9 to pick up the 'cargo' of the Jem'Hadar child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dukhat:
There is zero canonical evidence to support that this was the same ship as the prototype.

---

It was mentioned in the June 2001 issue of Star Trek Magazine. Not strictly canon, you're right, although 'authorized'.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
This strikes me as an extremely unusual assertion to make, for several reasons. First, the original Constitution-class (including its refit) apparently had a service life of approximately 50 to 60 years.

---

quote:

---

Then there's the Galaxy-class, which was built for a 100-year hull life as mentioned in the TNG:TM.

---

quote:

---

Finally, a vast majority of the movie-era starships (mainly Excelsior, Miranda, and Constellation) have been portrayed as old, slow, and nearing obsolescence.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, I wonder just how much a starship can really be upgraded during its lifetime. Certainly refits and added equipment can add to its usefulness over time, especially considering the cutting edge of technology continually advances. I recall someone mentioning that the carrier USS Enterprise had completely new nuclear reactors installed in the early 1980's, so this kind of replacement is certainly believable for any starship as well.

However, the simple design and appearance of starships also seems to imply an important factor in their capabilities. Starships have become ever faster, and the hull frames have become sleeker and more streamlined. (The cursed NX-01 will be ignored for this treatise.) The TNG:TM also suggested that streamlining had something to do with a ship's speed and efficiency.

Therefore, I'm not sure if I believe the implication that Starfleet could simply install a more powerful warp core, swap out some warp coils, and end up with an old Excelsior-class starship capable of keeping up with an Intrepid or a Sovereign.

Then there's the fact that a starship's internal volume must be allocated and occupied by certain equipment for certain purposes. The Galaxy-class had an abundance of space available, but earlier starships certainly didn't have this luxury. Therefore, something akin to a complete remake of the ship would be required to bring a 23rd century starship up to the standards of 2375. The Constitution-class certainly benefitted from this overhaul in TMP and beyond (apparently, anyway), but there's no real evidence of the Excelsior, the Miranda, or any others having gone through a similar refit. (I will admit that there's nothing to disprove a complete internal refit that kept the outer hull mainly the same, though.)

It's always been my opinion that Starfleet was on the verge of a huge turnover of ships in its fleet around the time of the Dominion War. (Yes, production costs in TNG and DS9 were the main cause here, but I'm talking about inside the Trek Universe! ) As the Dominion War went on, we started seeing more and more of the newer ships present in the battles, and in more prominent roles. Not to mention the fact that the Excelsior and Miranda workhorses got their asses handed to them on a consistent basis throughout the war. Therefore, it's been my opinion that Starfleet was planning on retiring a large number of the older starships and replacing them with more modern classes wholesale. What's the point of keeping starships around that can't keep up with the technology level? Obviously this would be a drawn out process and they wouldn't just get rid of all the old ships at once; but they WOULD start phasing out the old ships at a greater rate than before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dukhat:
Getting back to the original topic of starship duration times, IMHO I believe Star Trek (and to an extent, Michael Okuda & Rick Sternbach) has really screwed this up, based on the registry numbers of the ships we've seen. I'm basing this, of course, on the hypothesis that registry numbers are chronological; if they aren't, there's be no argument from me.

Anyway, once TNG premiered, TPTB had to recycle old movie models because the budget wouldn't allow any more new ships other than the Ent-D. For the first season, the Excelsior and Grissom models were used, without their names or registries changed (the movie Enterprise model would have been used as well, if Greg Jein hadn't decided to build a different model for the Stargazer, but that's another story). It was believable that these ships could still be on active duty; however being of the Kirk-era, it was also taken for granted that these were older ships probably being phased out by the Galaxy generation.

IIRC, the first movie model ever to be used with a new name & reg was the Lantree, a reuse of the Reliant model, but with a different yet similar low 4-digit registry. Again, this was believable because by the late 24th century, this Kirk-era ship had been relegated to transport duty.

However, all of a sudden Okuda decides to fill displays and relabel movie-era models with ridiculously high registries (3XXXX for Mirandas, 4xxxx for Excelsiors, 5XXXX for Oberths), and then proceed to give a more advanced ship a registry even lower than all of these (1XXXX & 2XXXX for Ambassadors!). Then, by DS9 we see a myriad of Excelsiors & Mirandas on active duty fighting a war against a superior power (this was only because the CGI guys made the models because they had the physical model to go by).

None of this makes sense realistically. As someone earlier said, even technological upgrades can only go so far, especially when the exterior of the ship never changes! Okuda should have given every Excelsior, Miranda & Oberth a lower registry than he did, IMO.

---

This is, again, mostly just thoughts based on what you would *like* to see rather than what you actually *did* see. (Yes, I am aware that I am talking to Dukkie rather than MM now. ) You proceed from the assumption that all of those Excelsiors and Mirandas were older vessels. However, if you consider that these designs might have still been in production even well into the 24th century, the registries make fine sense. Remember, just because a DESIGN is old, it doesn't mean that the INDIVIDUAL SHIPS are equally as old. The Lantree was indeed supposed to be an old vessel dating from the late 23rd century. However, other Mirandas like the Majestic and Nautilus were not. (They weren't brand new either, of course, but they were much more recent.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
When you're considering starship (or wet-navy) operations, there are two big factors to consider for almost any mission profile: speed and power.

First off, does it make any sense to have a fleet of ships (that often could end up working in groups) where a small number of them are a whole lot slower? That would make for a serious handicap, especially in situations like the Dominion War -- because if Starfleet had been able to field only Akiras, Intrepids, and Galaxys (sic), then they could've travelled a lot faster than the Mirandas and Excelsiors who accompanied them.

Then there's the cost/resource/energy factor for speed -- the slower a ship, the longer it takes to get somewhere and perform a job. And the crew would be stuck, too. In an era where a cruising speed of Warp 7 isn't unheard of, who wants to be stuck at Warp 5? (Warp 5
Warp 6 in the old scale.)

On top of that, Starfleet can't afford to send out lightly armed ships any more. (Or at least, I hope they realize that.)

I've just thought of the perfect analogy here. The USS Constitution is still considered to be in "active" service. Now, would the Navy have any intention of sending that old, wooden sailing frigate out to support the actions in Afghanistan? Or even out on active patrol in the US coastal region, say for Coast Guard duties? I think not. And they wouldn't bother refitting the ship with a nuclear reactor and a missile battery, either. They'd just build a new ship and keep Old Ironsides docked in Boston Harbor where it belongs.

Even simpler: let's take a World War I-era battleship. The ships served their purposes just fine when they were built. They were sufficient for peacetime naval patrols in the 1930's. And they were retained for duty after Pearl Harbor, serving in the Pacific but clearly out of their league in most respects. And after the war, they were never used in any important capacity again.

The only real options left are point-defense duty and low-priority cargo transport. But I have never understood the idea of using old ships of the line as cargo transports. It makes no sense to have a ship with such an irregular hull serve as a supply ship. Yeah, you could use them for some small courier jobs, but even if you rip out most of the quarters and laboratories, I can't imagine it would be practical for carrying LOTS of stuff.

Also, IMO using an obsolete heavy cruiser for Coast Guard-type duties is both ineffective and a waste of resources. Even considering wide use of automation, a starship that originally required 500+ people to run is not a good candidate for hanging out in planetary orbit and helping to get some kid's pet space slug out of the asteroid field. It would be resource-intensive, first in converting the ship to require less crew and refit the systems for its new mission profile, and also to maintain considering its large size with respect to the service it provides.

Therefore, I see no real option for keeping these old ships around longer than necessary. Certainly some of the ships will remain in service until they can be replaced, but I would expect that the Mirandas and Excelsiors would be completely retired by 2400, with the Ambassadors and their contemporaries on the way out the door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boris:
If Starfleet can decompose people into data and restore them, reorganize molecules into whatever you want, travel faster than light, simulate almost realistic environments using holodecks, and do a zillion other things that we cannot, what makes you think they cannot create designs that could be used for a couple of centuries?
Especially since most of the above technology remained fairly static for 200 years or more.

This is a minor example of the same problem Star Wars has -- technological stasis. The humans and the other races have discovered the best there is to discover for the foreseeable future, and are merely refining or modifying existing technologies.

I think some people are making false analogies with respect to the real world, and/or refusing to abandon fan theories created in a time where the Star Trek universe was being developed in materials devoid any budgetary or confusing-the-viewer type of restrictions. Unfortunately, the new canon Star Trek supercedes those materials, unless you're analyzing your own fan-fiction view of things, in which case it technically doesn't belong in this forum.

---

I agree to a great extent with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dukhat:
There is zero canonical evidence to support that this was the same ship as the prototype. Odo (IIRC) only says the name of the ship, not the class or registry number. That's like saying that Tom Paris served on the Constitution class Exeter, just because he didn't say the ship's class or reg.

---

By your stringent standards, perhaps not. But the fact that it's stated in the Star Trek Encyclopdedia, the Star Trek Fact Files and Star Trek: The Magazine is good enough for most of us.

And, I'll remind you, there *is* canonical evidence that the Constellation-class U.S.S. Victory NCC-9754 served in the Dominion War, in the form of two computer displays. The first, seen in TNG, lists the vessel's name, class, and registry number. The second, from DS9 "In The Pale Moonlight," lists the same vessel by name and number as a participant in the war.

If one, why not more? According to all official sources, the Constellation, Gettysburg, and Magellan we heard about on DS9 during the war were the "old" Constellations.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
just to point out, the a lot of people have been pointing out that the Mirandas and Excelsior built in the 24th century look identical on the outside to the 23rd c. equivalents.. i still dont see why this prevents them from

a) being built of more advanced materials, formed in the same proven shape
b) being equipped with a whole new generation of equipment on the inside, like reactor systems and power feeds

The 1940s aircraft carriers and the modern aircraft carriers look extremely similar on the outside, but in the past 60 or seventy years there have been whole revolutions in nuclear power, aircraft design and structural technology, not to mention the ships weapons and the addition of computers.

just like 2002 VW Bug looks a lot like the 1962 one on the outside, but there a helluva lotta difference under the hood.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"The only real options left are point-defense duty and low-priority cargo transport. But I have never understood the idea of using old ships of the line as cargo transports. It makes no sense to have a ship with such an irregular hull serve as a supply ship. Yeah, you could use them for some small courier jobs, but even if you rip out most of the quarters and laboratories, I can't imagine it would be practical for carrying LOTS of stuff.

"Also, IMO using an obsolete heavy cruiser for Coast Guard-type duties is both ineffective and a waste of resources. Even considering wide use of automation, a starship that originally required 500+ people to run is not a good candidate for hanging out in planetary orbit and helping to get some kid's pet space slug out of the asteroid field. It would be resource-intensive, first in converting the ship to require less crew and refit the systems for its new mission profile, and also to maintain considering its large size with respect to the service it provides."

Okay. But how does that mean that they couldn't do it, if they wanted to?

"just like 2002 VW Bug looks a lot like the 1962 one on the outside..."

Ha!
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 

quote:

---

This is, again, mostly just thoughts based on what you would *like* to see rather than what you actually *did* see.

---

quote:

---

You proceed from the assumption that all of those Excelsiors and Mirandas were older vessels. However, if you consider that these designs might have still been in production even well into the 24th century, the registries make fine sense.

---

quote:

---

Remember, just because a DESIGN is old, it doesn't mean that the INDIVIDUAL SHIPS are equally as old. The Lantree was indeed supposed to be an old vessel dating from the late 23rd century. However, other Mirandas like the Majestic and Nautilus were not. (They weren't brand new either, of course, but they were much more recent.)

---

quote:

---

just like 2002 VW Bug looks a lot like the 1962 one on the outside, but there a helluva lotta difference under the hood.

---

But it doesn't look EXACTLY like the 1962 Bug on the outside, again acknowledging my point.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I too would have LOVED to see more new designs in Trek, but it just didn't happen. But rather than pining away over that fact, or trying to ret-con things to be more in line with "what it should have been like," I go for a straight interpretation of what was seen.

Whether I like it or not.

And as to making sense, like I said, there's been one hell of a lot of stuff in the past thirty-some years of Trek. Nature of the beast.

I can live with it.

I can even live with "Threshold."

I understand what you're saying, though.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dukhat:
But it doesn't look EXACTLY like the 1962 Bug on the outside, again acknowledging my point.

---

Well, I'd say this is predominantly an issue of aesthetics. I see no real reason why VW couldn't have used the exact same body shell as the original and still incorporate all or most of the new tech that's included in the new Beetle. They just wanted a "new look." Starfleet, on the other hand, wouldn't care about giving a fresh face to its vessels, and additionally it would presumably be more cost-effective to leave the basic spaceframes as unmodified as possible.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
A case for newer ships of older design: The dedication plaque for the USS Brattain lists the launch date as Stardate 22519.5, or 2345, for a hull number of NCC-21166. So new Mirandas were being constructed at least two years after the start of the Galaxy Class Development Project, and the Brattain is one of the earliest of the newer Mirandas. There's still the whole 31xxx series which, if NCC are roughly chronological, happens later than 2345.
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SoundEffect:
The dedication plaque for the USS Brattain lists the launch date as Stardate 22519.5, or 2345, for a hull number of NCC-21166. So new Mirandas were being constructed at least two years after the start of the Galaxy Class Development Project, and the Brattain is one of the earliest of the newer Mirandas. There's still the whole 31xxx series which, if NCC are roughly chronological, happens later than 2345.

---

Stardates are rarely trust worthy try working it out on other dates... besides that the Galaxy Class is a better datapoint... 2341 and the NX Galaxy's registry.
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Actually, that would screw things up even more! Because that would mean that Starfleet only built 5000 ships over the next 35 years, considering the USS Sao Paulo which started construction some time between 2371 and 2375. Not to mention that the Danube-class runabouts were new designs as of 2370 or so, and can't have been in the design process for too long given their small size.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Stardates on the dedication plaques should probably be treated as the dates of the most recent launch or commissioning. That is, the plaque would have been refitted along with the refitting of the vessel. An extensive internal refit and associated layover period could be considered "decommissioning" by Starfleet, like it was considered "decommissioning" by most pre-20th century navies.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
 
I will repectfully disagree with you on the recommissioning point. I can't find evidence in Trek that this has been done before, most of the dates on plaques make sense. As an example, by your logic, the plaque for the Excelsior should probably list a later date than the Enterprise-A's plaque, since the Excelsior was 'recomissioned' from it's NX status to NCC, including several yard changes. Yet the stardate on the Excelsior plaque from Trek VI still lists a date consistent with Trek III's timeframe.

J: I don't quite understand what you meant with the USS Galaxy reference. It was launched in 2357 and has a hull number of 70637. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

According to a line by O'Brien the Runabouts were first commissioned in 2368.

As an aside,

TNG era Stardates do make more sense than most people give them credit for. I have a large sheet of paper here where I worked out how TNG Stardates are likely calculated. After figuring out the numbers on my chart, I went through my canon resources for any stardates that had corresponding calendar dates. My chart has not been off by more than 2 days max, and in most cases is dead on. The first test was the Enterprise-D's launch date of October 4, 2363 and Stardate 40759.5. Although we didn't have the official date of Voyager's commissioning, my chart worked it out to the premiere date of the Voyager series in mid-January! Someone was thinkin'! My chart is only reliable for TNG era dates back to 2323.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
I have no problem with starships having lifespans in excess of 100 years. You don't need every ship in the fleet to be capable of warp 9.9 or to have a huge weapons load out. If modern vessels are designed with lifespans of 50+ years then what is the problem? They wouldn't necessarily be in frontline service or even in service for all this time just in a state of readiness to be reactivated. Oh, and the ultimate example of ships lasting a long time? Napoleonic ships of the line were used as training and accomodation ships during WW2. Unfortuneately they went and scuttled most of them after the war .
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
SoundEffect: Have you tested your theory w/ the stardate in "Data's Day" (corresponding to Diwali, a Hindu festival) and that late VOY episode that takes place on "Zefram Cochrane Day" or whatever?
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Don't even get me started on Diwali. Oy.
 

---

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
 
Here's a question. What's the difference between a Miranda with a 18xx number and one with 31xxx number? Definitely not the design? What about everythign else that can be swapped?

Just because the outter frame looks old, does not mean the whole class is old. Those ships with the 31xxx registries, probably have the same equipment as newly designed ships built around the same time.
 

---

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
...Something easily proven, given all the non-TOS movie-style sets we've seen on various Mirandas over the years. Lantree, Br!ttain, and Saratoga all had TNG-era LCARS and free-standing consoles.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
 
This is not a thread about stardates; it suffices to say that you can't precisely convert them even in the TNG era, although the latter are more regular than those of TOS.

Let's be clear on this -- Star Trek is not a show about technological progress. The early outlines made it clear that this was a show where space travel has become so easy that it calls to mind the days of the sailing ships; it was the only way it could've been done on a weekly budget, and it also allowed the writers to focus on the characters rather than the technology.

Quite in that same spirit, every time a new technology is developed (M-5, transwarp, quantum slipstream, you name it), it doesn't work! You have to make a new series set a century later for any changes to be seen, and even then they're only minor.

According to the Star Trek universe, our technological progress will start to decline 150 years from now. It may be due to our own efforts, it may be due to the Vulcans or other aliens that agreed to share their technology in the process of forming the Federation.

Boris

[ December 04, 2002, 18:32: Message edited by: Boris ]
 

---

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
 

quote:

---

...Something easily proven, given all the non-TOS movie-style sets we've seen on various Mirandas over the years. Lantree, Br!ttain, and Saratoga all had TNG-era LCARS and free-standing consoles.

---