The more I see of this design the more I like it. I refer to the Connie Refit saucer with the neck and two nacelles attached via short pylons from the DS9TM. Anyone spotted this onscreen on DVD yet? I know they made afilming model but I sure missed it onscreen.
This (to me) is a perfect final configuration of the Connie Refit: by the DS9 era, most of the Connie's huge engineering department would be reduced to fit in the "neck". The whole secondary hull is eliminated for the most part with the warpcore running along the back of the neck and ejecting downward.
Your thoughts? Is this a class unto itself or possibly Starfleet squeezing every last drop of lifespan from the Connie Refit....or just a "one off" made in desperate times?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think of it as a refit of the old Hermes-Class scout that has been around since the 2270s. It certainly looked old and beatup, they might have even pulled it out of mothballs since it had no apparant name or reg as I recall.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
hmmmm...that's a possibility. I wouldnt call it a Hermes exactly with two nacelles though.....unless it was a biiiig refit!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Perhaps a successor to the Hermes/Saladin.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
An extra nacelle is hardly an extensive refit for a design like that, especially when you consider that (assuming it recived similar treatment to the Connie refit) most of the systems would be totally new anyway, including the warp drive.
One could speculate that there is a single nacelle version which was the refit of the Destroyer class (Saladin?) while the twin nacelle (faster) variant is more appropriate as the refit of the Hermes-Class Scout.
Either way, it's certainly a better explanation than the overused "they got desperate in the Dominoin war and did a chop-job" excuse.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I don't see how you could really fit everything from a Connie secondary hull into the neck (minus a shuttlebay), even assuming advancements in tech would allow for size reduction of hardware.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, consider that the Polaris could use whatever deflector system is on the Miranda, wouldnt need a shuttlebay and by TNG, the warpcore is only about a tenth the size of the TMP version, I can see it working just fine. What else is down in the secondary hull anyway? Ship's foodstores would be replaced with replicators. The Botanical gardens would be replavced by a far smaller holodeck in the saucer.
Anything else down here that I missed?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I really don't think it's a cut-down connie refit. I just don't really see the point. Also there would probably be far more than just food stores in the secondary hull. And you'd have to carry virtually the same quantity of base matter (deuterium?) for the replicators anyway. See the entry in Timo's Hitchhikers guide for my interpretation...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Agreed, a cut down connie just doesn't make any practical sense. More likely it was an existing piece of 23rd century hardware that got pulled out of mothballs and dusted off for use as a scout/picket ship/support vessel/tug/whatever. Whether it was a refit of the old Hermes or a seperate yet very similar class developed later is up for debate.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Something I noticed about the filming model that I didn't know about when I built my model was that the connecting hull for the engines is made with the bendable pylons on an Intrepid Class, though minorly out of scale for the actual kits involved.
Since the Voyager impulse engines are facing forward on this DS9 kitbash model, and the saucer already has impulse engines in the usual place, these two details could be twin deflectors (the same way Jason interpreted two deflectors on the Elkins.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
HUh. Got a pic of that, Stephen? All I found is the top view...and I thought those were custom parts....although I DO like the idea of twin deflectors.... Wiggy.
Hey, you finish your Miranda variant yet? I'm posting pics this week of the USS Loftus. Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Jason, look at the top view of the 'Polaris' studio model and then look at corresponding details of a bottom view of Voyager...the details are identical to the use of the 22" AMT Enterprise-A and the large Monogram Voyager. Remember, it's only the bending part of the pylon that was used and placed together.
I do believe you're right on those pylons...I'd probably place a Voyager deflector emitter in the model's torpedo bay opening and use the tiny impulse engines facing forward as torp launchers though.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I agree with the sentiment that it is NOT a connie refit. I see it as perhaps a "Light Cruiser" class.
It appears that Starfleet was started by General Motors. Slap a different trim and nameplate and it becomes a Chevy, or a Pontiac, or an Oldsmobile etc.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Ford, too...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So it's the Buick class?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't agree with why it isn't a Connie refit.
Let's look to the end of the 23rd century. The Excelsior-Class has become the explorer of Starfleet, and Constitution-Class starships are set for retirement (evidence in TUC, "this ship and crew are due to stand down"). Now, perhaps Starfleet has a need for a light ship for assorted duties, and some bright headed lieutenant commander eager for a promotion comes up with an idea - "Hey, instead of scrapping all these Connies, why not do some refit work?"
It does make sense - presumeably, the Constitution-Class has at least the life-span of the Miranda-Class, and we've seen how long those have lasted. Even if you argue that the older Connies from TOS had a shorter span, a counter arguement would be that the TMP refit was initiated by Starfleet to expand the ship's operational life-span, and that new Connies built to those specs would also have that longer life-span.
The plan is thus: chop off the secondary hull, and gut the primary hull. Reconfigure the primary hull to accomodate a Mirandized-deflector, and engineering section, and other neccessities of a starship. The pros are clear: you save time by using an existing hull, meaning your productivity is higher - in the time time it takes you to build twelve ships of a new light-cruiser designation, you could possibly convert the entire Consitution fleet (let's guesstimate it at two to three dozen). Also, you have this new class of ship ready for space trials much faster, and you still have the ship's previous crew ready to man the vessel.
A Miranda-Class ship holds all of this, but does have a bit bigger hull, true ... on the other hand, there's no reason why a refitted Connie couldn't contain all of the neccessary sections with a smaller crew then a Miranda. Heck, if the ship's purpose is just cargo transfers, supply runs, and VIP transport, the ship could operate with a crew as small as a few dozen.
I don't see why the "ex-Connie" arguement is so quickly stricken. I think it does make sense. I don't think it is neccessarily correct, but I don't see why it couldn't be.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: A Miranda-Class ship holds all of this, but does have a bit bigger hull, true ... on the other hand, there's no reason why a refitted Connie couldn't contain all of the neccessary sections with a smaller crew then a Miranda.
Recall also, the Miranda class USS Lantree's crew was only twelve. Presumably to automation. That means that a Connie Refit could be used for this severe refit. I'd think small ships like this were on constant patrol throught the Fed to help in ship disasters, patrol the borders and stop piracy. The ship's probably a good match for a couple of Hediki's but would probably eat it against a Jemmie bug.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but the Lantree had a crew of 12 in the mid 24th Century, the Connie Refit as described would probably have occured in the late 23rd century, so the ship would probably have been refit with a larger crew in mind - anywhere from 60 to 100 personnel (doesn't the Miranda staff close to 200+ crew in normal operations?), a number which could easily be reduced by the time of TNG/DS9, at which point automation systems seem to be much more reliable and ships don't require such large crews.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah. I figure the Polaris- if in continous service- would have recieved periodic upgrades just as trhe lantree did and if it's something de-mothballed, they'd want it to have the least crew possible due to manpower shortages during the war.
A bit OT: I wonder if Spacedock was ever armed DS9-style during the Dominion War.....mabye to protect Utopia Planetia?
If so, it's be a "not to be fucked with" outpost.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
How do we know that it wasn't already heavily armed?
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Constitution-Class starships are set for retirement (evidence in TUC, "this ship and crew are due to stand down").
Er, the fact that the quote says "This ship", and not "all ships of this class", makes that evidence a bit, well, rubbish.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: How do we know that it wasn't already heavily armed?
Y'know, I thought about that after I posted in. If you're of the group that believes a Quantum Torpedo can be fired from a Photorp launcher, the Polaris could be VERY effective for such a small ship. Epically if they operate in packs of three in a relativly small area (say a million km) so they'd be able to back each other up when they ran into trouble.
This ship would still be better armed than a KBOP.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Er, the fact that the quote says "This ship", and not "all ships of this class", makes that evidence a bit, well, rubbish.
It's generally accepted that the Enterprise-A was a renamed USS Yorktown, and that the Yorktown was in service during the days of TOS, yes? If we assume two things:
1) That Starfleet was phasing out the Constitution-Class starship in favor of the Excelsior and Miranda-Class as evidenced by:
(A) On screen evidence in TNG and DS9, not once do we see a Connie on screen, but we do see plenty of ships from that time period - Excelsiors, Mirandas, even some Constellations early on in TNG.
(B) That "a" indicates, or at least supports the conclusion, that the Constitution-Class starship was not in service by the era of TNG/DS9, thus opening the possibility that the Polaris-Class may have its origins in the mothballed Connie-fleet.
2) That the Yorktown/Enterprise-A was being retired because of her age, thusly all of the early run (surviving) Connies had either already been decomissioned or were slated for upcoming decomissioning. Later production run Connies (ships built new after TMP?) may have continued service for longer.
None of this proves that the Polaris-Class has its origins in the Constitution-Class, but there's really no evidence to shoot down the theory either. We know that ships of the time period had extremely long lifetimes, so why would Starfleet scrap an entire class when it could retrofit the Consitution-Class starships to provide a niche that otherwise would have to be filled by an entirely new class of starship?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Liam was talking about Spacedock.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I was. And...
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: It's generally accepted that the Enterprise-A was a renamed USS Yorktown, and that the Yorktown was in service during the days of TOS, yes?
No.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If you go for that Yorktown cra...er idea, it's very unlikely the ship was a TOS model: NOTHING worked on that junkpile in STV and it's layout was diffrent enough that a drunken Scotty knocked himself out on a pipe.
I'd think that ships were still being built utilizing the (possibly modular) connie saucer and nacelle designs as far as 50 years post STVI. Mirandas may have been built even after that. Later, the idea of changing ship components around moves on to the Excelsior group of parts and we get the Centaur, Shelly, Raging Queen and probably other stranger designs using Excelsior components too.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:it's very unlikely the ship was a TOS model: NOTHING worked on that junkpile in STV and it's layout was diffrent enough that a drunken Scotty knocked himself out on a pipe.
How does that prove it ISN'T a TOS model? Remember that the Yorktown was the ship that had to rig a solar sail. For all we know, all the ships affected by the probe experienced similar computer malfunctions which took long refit times to repair.
Suggesting that the ship is a more recent model does however support the notion that the entire Connie line was scrapped after Star Trek VI - why retire a perfectly good ship when its only twenty or so years old? Remember that Kirk states that the ship is due to be retired before it gets punched full of big holes.
Also, what does the pipe prove - Scotty wasn't paying attention, or was drunk, or that the ship's refit was incomplete, that the ship was in the process of a second refit (hinted at by the change in bridges between STIV and STV), *or* to a different design of the original Enterprise - let's not forget that the interior of the ship (the corridors, the shuttlebay, transporter room) looked quite different then that of the Enterprise we saw in previous movies (I know thats because they were using TNG sets for a lot of it, but there's got to be a "real world" explanation).
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Scotty wasn't paying attention, or was drunk
this would be a fascinating concept for a future novel.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Remember that Kirk states that the ship is due to be retired before it gets punched full of big holes.
Where? Because, if I recall correctly, Spock also says to Valeris,
"Nature abhors a vacuum, lieutenant. This will be my final voyage on this ship as a member of her crew. I intend you to replace me."
Which implies that it wasn't originally going to be decommissioned.
And, going by the end of the movie, with the emphasis being mine:
"This will be the final voyage of the starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her, er, something, will shortly become the care of a new crew."
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, dialog in the movie did contradict itself. Right after the meeting with the top brass, Kirk did say to Spock that the ship and crew were to stand down. This was before Spock's and Valeris' conversation aboard the Enterprise. Also, at the end before Kirk's log, Uhura did say that she received a message from Starfleet to return to Spacedock to be decommissioned.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At the end when Kirk says "Second star to the left..." he really means it: Solar incineration was the only way Starfleet could get the old man smell out.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Liam -
First, see Dat's post. Whereas Spock's interpretation can be interpreted (Spock thought Kirk might not wish to give up the command seat and stay on, thus needing a science officer) or however you rationalize it, I don't quite see how you can get over Kirk's line that "ship and crew" were due to stand down, or over Starfleet's orders to report to Spacedock to be decommissioned.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Is there any chance that it was the crew that was to report in and not the ship... seeing as how they did disobey orders and would be up for an investigation of some kind--- perhaps SFC just wanted to go about it the easy way, suspend the entire crew from active duty and put a new on onboard so that the ship wasn't sitting in spacedock doing nothing [but then there is the problem with the fact that the ship was damaged to a point that all the repairs could have taken place during an investigation and the down times of the ship and crew would be overlapped].
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Naaa.... STVI ended things nicely without the prospect of another mission: even with a whole new crew. Decommisioning also saves having to: A) make up a whole new crew/captain/mission taht we've never heard of and B) explain what happened to the connie refit if she wasnt decommisioned. It's not like Starfleet would launch the Enterprise B if the Enterprise A was still serving as a training vessel of anything.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And I think that's evidence that either the Enterprise-A was an older Connie, or that the entire line was being retired. If the ship was older, it would make sense that it was nearing the end of its operational life-span. If the ship wasn't as old, then why would it be decomissioned? One possible explanation: Starfleet decided to retire the entire class!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think the class was decommisioned. It's possible the Miranda was spared due to modular components that the older Connie didint have, allowing for endless refits.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
...Except for the refit Constitution hull plainly seen amongst the wreckage at Wolf 359...Couldn't have been any other type of vessel.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Except that the ships at Wolf 359 were a bit of a rag-tag fleet, with Oberths, Springfields and all sorts of rarely seen ships. The Constitution might have been pulled from reserves or even from Acadamy training service.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It could have been something pulled from a shipyard, a civillian ship there to aid survivors or that wacky "challenger" design with the constalation parts and a connie refit secondary hull hanging down.
Personally I think it's proof that starfleet faked the whole Wolf359 battle just like they faked the moon landing......
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Couldn't have been any other type of vessel."
So, all of the Galaxy saucers floating around really belonged to Galaxies, even the ones that were New Orleanses, Nebulas, etc.?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Exactly, it could have had Connie components, but was something else like a Belknap.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Well, dialog in the movie did contradict itself. Right after the meeting with the top brass, Kirk did say to Spock that the ship and crew were to stand down. This was before Spock's and Valeris' conversation aboard the Enterprise. Also, at the end before Kirk's log, Uhura did say that she received a message from Starfleet to return to Spacedock to be decommissioned.
It could just mean the 'old crew'. Or even that the E-A was to stop it's missions and the E-B take over... and presumably Valeris might have been the Science officer on that ship.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
True. The dialogue does contradict itself. Which causes confusion.
Because, Jeffy boy, your assertations that the Enterprise-A was an old ship are based on:
1/ Something Roddenberry made up on the spot that should in no way be deemed even remotly canonical.
2/ The fact that the crew occasionally says that the ship is being decommisioned, even though at other times they say that it isn't.
Omega has used more watertight arguments than that.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Liam,
quote:1/ Something Roddenberry made up on the spot that should in no way be deemed even remotly canonical.
If you mean the "Yorktown" bit, I actually didn't know he said that. I remember reading a thread on that here on Flare. I do think the case can be made however - all the technical difficulties with the ship can be attributed to the disruption of the Probe. On the other hand, you can argue its a new ship, but then you have to wonder about Utopia Planitia's intelligence: why plop on an old bridge module when you're just going to replace it a couple of months later?
quote:2/ The fact that the crew occasionally says that the ship is being decommisioned, even though at other times they say that it isn't.
And, gee golly, the decommissioning dialogue is supported by the presence of a brand new USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B in a film prologue set only a few years later. I think I win this one.
quote:Because, Jeffy boy, your assertations that the Enterprise-A was an old ship
Which is why I said "if we assume" in prefacing my argument. Didn't read that part, didja? Silly Liam.
There's more than the dialogue in Star Trek VI supporting the notion that the Constitution-Class was retired, or did you skip over that bit? Let me rehash:
If the Enterprise-A was in fact a new(er) Connie, why was she retired so soon (perhaps along with the entire class)? We know she was decomissioned because evidence in "Generations" (namely, a new USS Enterprise) hints that the OLD USS Enterprise is no longer in service.
Now, quite a bit of the evidence IS circumstantial - we've never seen a Connie outside of time-travel episodes post-Star Trek VI. We've seen lots of ships from the same time period - Oberths, Excelsiors, Mirandas, Constellations ... pretty clearly, Starfleet was capable of building ships which could last, so why no Constitutions?
You could argue that the Enterprise-A was a newer ship, so would have a longer life-span. Okay. The Enterprise-Nil is schedules to be retired in Star Trek III ... I forget how old the Admiral states she is, but I know he's off by a few decades, she's what, forty at that point? So if we assume that the lifespan of a Connie is 40 years, then it makes sense that newer Connies would have the same (minimum) life span, at least 40 years. And yet how many years take place between Kirk & Co. warping out at the end of Star Trek IV in Enterprise-A, and the ship warping out at the end of Star Trek VI to be decomissioned? If the ship IS a new Connie, she's being retired quite a bit early, don't you think? This supports one of two conclusions: the Enterprise-A was an older, recomissioned Constitution, OR, the Constitution-Class was retired.
If you don't like my argument, why don't you try posting a counter-argument that amounts to more than brown-nosing Omega?
[ January 03, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, all of the Galaxy saucers floating around really belonged to Galaxies, even the ones that were New Orleanses, Nebulas, etc.?
Well the Nebula saucer section IS distinctly different from a Galaxy Class one and the New Orleans, Cheyenne, Springfield Class saucers are again very distinct (most notably in size) so I still maintain the secondary hull couldn't have been anything other than Constitution refit. It is possible to have some other class ship with the same hull, but there are really very few truly crossover parts around amongst all the Starfleet classes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: It is possible to have some other class ship with the same hull, but there are really very few truly crossover parts around amongst all the Starfleet classes.
Nacelles, bridges, lifeboats, saucers, the whole front half of the Intrepid and 90% of the Excelsior are used in other class designs. Thems a lot of crossover parts, just not the one in question- the Connie secondary hull. Besides, Stephen, just look at all the variants the Miranda has (nudge, nudge-wink, wink).
I like to think that some of the old Connie Refits went into civillian hands and some were decommisioned into colony transports, merchantmarine and supply freighters as automation became more commonplace: any of those could account for a Conie being in the wreckage. There was four whole hours between the start of the battle and the Enterprise D's arrival: lots of time for general distress calls to go out and be answered by any available ship in the area. Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Yeah, there are some identical parts, but as close as the Miranda and Constitution nacelles look compared to each other, they aren't identical. Even the Nebula and Galaxy nacelles aren't exact copies.
For the Excelsior (not counting the Ent-B style) there are still two distinct saucer sections.
Small components are the same, I'm talking the big stuff.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Actually the Galaxy and Nebula nacelles are exactly the same. They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons. The Nebula nacelle is just an upside-down Galaxy nacelle.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Well the Nebula saucer section IS distinctly different from a Galaxy Class one
Not if we're talking about the CGI model, it's not.
And now, Jeff, let me say that I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I was more taking affront with the phrase "generally acknowledged", because I don't think it is.
I seem to recall the fact that Roddenberry came up with the "Yorktown" thing is in the Encyclopedia. I'm not sure though, and they could have been wrong.
quote: And, gee golly, the decommissioning dialogue is supported by the presence of a brand new USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B in a film prologue set only a few years later. I think I win this one.
Ahh, right. Now, see, you're arguing two points here. Point one is that the ship was scheduled for decommisioning after it's current mission. Point two is that the ship was scheduled for decomissioning due to the large amount of damage that it received.
Now, true, that would be a very snap decision for Starfleet to make. Presumably they received a notification of the Enterprise's damage shortly after The Day Was Saved. An unknown amount of time passes between that and the Excelsior leaving, but it's probably a few hours (and less than a day). That would be a rapid decision from an organisation that tells to waffle any chance it gets.
But it's still perfectly possibly that the ship wasn't planning on being decomissioned at that point. Starfleet just wanted to decommision the senior crew. However, when the ship got back, someone said "Holy shit! This thing looks a mess. Why don't we decommision it and make one of the new Excelsior-class ships an Enterprise, eh?"
Even if it wasn't that badly damaged, there are plenty of other reasons why they might have decomisioned the ship. As a way of honouring Kirk and co. As a sop to the Klingons to help the peace process. As a way of giving good press to the new Excelsior class line.
And, of course, there are a few years between STVI and Generations. Plenty of time for the ship to get destroyed. If it's been decomissioned, why isn't it in the fleet museum, eh? (There's no way that Picard would say "There's one in the fleet museum" if it was an Enterprise. In fact, there's no way he wouldn't mention to Scotty that his old ship isn't still in the Fleet museum.)
quote: The Enterprise-Nil is schedules to be retired in Star Trek III ... I forget how old the Admiral states she is, but I know he's off by a few decades, she's what, forty at that point?
He says "twenty", but yeah, he's wrong. 5 Years under April, 10 under Pike, another 5 under Kirk, 2 and a half year refit, potentially another 5 year mission under Kirk, faffing around as a training vessel for an amount of time that I can't remember. 40 sounds about right.
Of course, Starfleet is a bit eratic with ship ages. Riker says in "All Good Things" that the Ent-D was going to be decomissioned before it even hit 30, and that was a ship designed to last 100 years. The only possibility would be if the ship was badly damaged, and that would support the notion that Starfleet prefers to decomission ships rather than repair them (for god knows what reason).
The "ships from the same time period" is more valid, although there are still some qualifiers. Oberths are pretty much just tiny science ships. Some are even crewed by civilians. There are obviously not anywhere near state of the art, and can be run by a small crew (yeah, the Pegasus throws a spanner into these works, and I shall explain that by, er, look over there!)
Excelsiors are at least twenty years newer than Constitutions, and possibly even more. It's also possible that, like Galaxy's, they were designed to "last". But they are still far from state of the art, and often implied to be old:
"They send you Galaxy-class boys out to the far regions. Me, I just haul my butt back and forth between Starbases."
"That's a lot of fire-power for an old Excelsior-class ship."
I don't think we've ever seen a Constellation in proper service, have we? You've got the Stargazer, which was a relic; the Hathaway, which meant so little so Starfleet that they just left it uncrewed in orbit of some random planet; and a ship in Picard's rapidly pulled together (so rapidly that half the ships didn't have full crews) fleet in Redemption II. They could easily be a retired line.
And Mirandas are, well, freaks. Complete, honest to goodness freaks. If they were just like the Lantree, then fair enough, but with examples like the Saratoga having families, the only possible explanation is that, somehow, they are incredibly versatile ships that are extremely cheap to build, or something.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
We saw the Victory as an active service ship... an apparently still is by the time of the Dominion War. As for the Hathaway, it could have been towed there by another ship from a starbase. We did see the Enterprise towing her at the end of the episode. Maybe she was being returned to the starbase.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hathaway could have easily have been a old training vessel that was replaced with something new and then intentionally damaged to mke Riker's test more of a challenge. As to old ships serving in the Dominion WAr, we're overlooking the relative peace the Fed had between the Cardassian War and W359 (by wich time they were obviously complacent). Shipbuilding and design is low priority in peacetime. Also consider they wouldnt want to start a shipbuilding esclation with the Klingons or Cardassians so they foolishly kept ships far longer than prudent, lost a bunch of newer ships (the NCC-4XXX-5XXX family?) to the cardies, then some of it's newest to the Borg then later to the Klingons....they probably had to use any ship still in service (Miranda freighters as example) to fill gaps in their defenses.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Actually the Galaxy and Nebula nacelles are exactly the same. They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons. The Nebula nacelle is just an upside-down Galaxy nacelle.
Actually the connecting point is where I was making my distinction. If you look at the connecting part of both filming models, the Nebula Class connecting point (the part with the airlock) is bigger.
I know that portion is different, but it's really part of the pylon and not the nacelle as is evident on the third nacelle on the (dreadnought) E-D. So I still say they are completely identical. I was talking about the points and structures on the nacelles themselves... as to where the nacelles would be bolted or welded to the pylons and where the PTCs would connect to the nacelles.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Then what did you mean by "They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons"?
Anyway, this seems to be nitpicking. What I was trying to get at is that in a general sense, a lot of Starfleet technology seems to have similar looking components; having a Starfleet motif, if you will, but if you really scrutinize it, there aren't really a lot of actual identical components in the big picture.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: We saw the Victory as an active service ship... an apparently still is by the time of the Dominion War. As for the Hathaway, it could have been towed there by another ship from a starbase. We did see the Enterprise towing her at the end of the episode. Maybe she was being returned to the starbase.
Possibly. Although we also saw the Enterprise warp off without her, rather strangely.
Wait, when did we see the Victory as an active service ship? And why was it still in service during the Dominion war?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: [QUOTE]Wait, when did we see the Victory as an active service ship? And why was it still in service during the Dominion war?
The Victory was an active service ship when it rendez-voused with the Enterprise-D at the end of "Elementary, Dear Data".
The Victory was again mentioned on the wall chart on DS9 as USS Victory NCC-9754 (same as TNG's Victory) of Dominion War casualties and MIAs.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:But they are still far from state of the art, and often implied to be old:
Sure, and in 2460 the same dialogue might apply to Galaxy, Defiant, and Sovereign-Class ships still in service. The point is that the Excelsior-Class was built to last! Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
the Victory was never seen being towed. it was an active ship that rendezvoused with the E-D..
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Victory could have been a training ship: it's loss would account for the Defiant class Valiant being used to train dead squad.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, we were talking about the Hathaway being towed, not the Victory.
"Sure, and in 2460 the same dialogue might apply to Galaxy, Defiant, and Sovereign-Class ships still in service. The point is that the Excelsior-Class was built to last!"
I know. And so was the Miranda, obviously. The Constitution wasn't. Although I don't think there's ever been dialogue stating that the entire class is not longer in serive.
Plus (and I forgot to add this earlier), this whole "retiring of an entire class" seems really, really silly. What the hell do they get out of it? The only way it makes sense is if Starfleet has the ability to produce Starships willy nilly, but has a shortage of people.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, if the MIranda had proven itself easier to produce and modify into mission-specific roles it could have easily replaced any Connie that required an extensive refit to continue operations.
We never heard how many Connies were actually refit: it's concievable that only a few were given the treatment the Enterprise (and presumably the Yorktown) had and the rest were never modified before retirment.
Why spend a year refitting an antiquanted starship when you can build a new Miranda (or possibly even an Excelsior) in the same timeframe that will serve far longer? Also consider that the other major powers would be producing starships of Excelsior quality and firepower to maintain a balance of power and the connie is severely lacking by comparison.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I think we're getting too hung up on the idea that because we never see any TNG-era Connies, that there aren't any. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence (or are we also going to assume that there are no more Ambassadors in service because the model was broken?).
quote: And, of course, there are a few years between STVI and Generations.
And the evidence for this is? All the Trek literature I've seen puts both movies in the same year.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
..both movies in the same year? ...the fuck!?1
That would mean the Excelsior class was refit a SECOND time after only three years in service.
That's just silly.
If it's all supposed to happen in the same year, when did Kirk meet and live with Antonia?
It also means Sulu's daughter was born prior to TMP. Sulu must havbe been one crappy father, shipping off with a newborn back home.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If it's all supposed to happen in the same year, when did Kirk meet and live with Antonia?"
Between TMP and TWoK.
The Encyclopedia does claim that TUC and Generations both happened in 2293. It also claims that Sulu's daughter was born the same year as TMP, but that's based on numbers that can be fiddled with to make her born after that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Was there 20-25 years between TMP and STVI? That doesnt sound right.
I have to think that at least the amount of time between the release of STVI and Generations had passed.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Dating the 23rd century precisely is tricky. Only a few dates can be nailed down exactly.
Generations has that '78 years later' caption which, coupled with the TNG stardate, places the Ent-B launch in 2293.
Voyager placed the end of the five year mission in 2270. (Thus showing the Chronology/Encyclopedia dates to be slightly off.) This then places TMP in 2272 or 2273.
ST II must be after 2283 (Romulan Ale date). But precise dating for II, III, IV and V isn't possible.
DS9 places The Trouble with Tribbles (just over half way through TOS season 2) 105 years, 1 month and 12 days before the present of Trials and Tribble-ations. But not present stardate is given for that episode. However the closest episodes either side with stardates show that this is early in 2273 so the TOS portion is early 2268 (or maybe just, late 2267). That places the start of season one the later half of 2266.
Note that combining this with the Voyager date for the end of the mission makes the three years of TOS the middle three years of the five year mission.
Star Trek VI is roughly dateable by McCoy's 27 years line. Assuming he joined the Enterprise between Where no man has gone before and the start of season one proper and that is roughly 2266 then that places ST VI in 2293.
However, ST VI could be a bit earlier. If we assume that Where no man has gone before takes place before the five year mission (different uniforms, moderate refit to the ship, no opening voiceover mentioning the five year mission) then McCoy could have joined the crew earlier than 2266. Also in ST VI McCoy does say "27 years as Ship's Surgeon and later as Chief Medical Officer" (or at least he does in the version of the script I've just checked). So maybe he was on board during Where no man... but wasn't yet CMO.
So there's wriggle room in the dating of ST VI but 2291-2293 is the possible range.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
How can ST VI and Generations be in the same year?
Didn't one of the reporters on the Ent-B bridge ask Kirk how he felt about this being "the first Enterprise in five years without James T. Kirk at the helm"?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Nope, just "this is the first starship Enterprise in thirty years without James T Kirk in command", or something to that effect.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Didn't they do that with the Soyuz? I know it's a sore point to bring up but Geordi did say something along the lines that they decomissioned the class. I think the best way to explain how this would happen would be that the vessels would:
1) no longer be built
2) no spares specific to this class would be produced [So if it had a unique part, it would have to go on without it]
3) no extraordinary means would be taken to repair damaged vessels
4) and the vessel would be taken out of active duty during the next upgrade cycle [which is something between 5 and 10 years on most classes (note: upgrade, not refit)].
Does that make more sense?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
For the retirement of Class thing, I'd assume they've give a retirement date and then the individual ships would be decommissioned one by one when necessary, not "Stop what you're doing and come home now".
Trek IV can be dated both by the producer's intent that the crew travelled back exactly 300 years, so the movie events took place in summer 1986 and the crew had come from summer 2286. This date is corroborated by the '78 years later' line mentioned so often when TNG first started which is itself back-dated from Data's line in "The Neutral Zone" that the year then is 2364.
Trek VI and the launching of Enterprise-B can occur in the same year. They may still be 7 or 8 months apart. It doesn't mean it was the very next day after Trek VI.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I never realised that Generations and STVI occured in the same year. Still, the point remains. There's possibly 11-odd months between them. Plenty of time for the Ent-A to get destroyed, and some bright spark at HQ to say "Hey, that new Excelsior that's due to launch at the end of the year...why don't we name it 'Enterprise'? We'll have a big conference, invite Kirk and whoever else we can get of his old crew...it'll inspire people to join up, and stuff. Everyone loves an Enterprise!"
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Why spend a year refitting an antiquanted starship when you can build a new Miranda (or possibly even an Excelsior) in the same timeframe that will serve far longer?
Because it almost certainly takes far longer than a year to build a Miranda or an Excelsior. Remember how long the Enterprise-D supposedly took?
quote:Also consider that the other major powers would be producing starships of Excelsior quality and firepower to maintain a balance of power and the connie is severely lacking by comparison.
But, er, it's not that easy. If it was, every Starfleet ship during TNG would have been a Galaxy. Every Klingon ship in DS9 would have been a Vor'cha. Every Dominion ship would have been the bloody big one.
Besides, a ship does more than simply shoot at the enemy. Is Starfleet going to throw away a whole load of useful ships simply because they look a bit old? I can see them regulating them to smaller duties, and decommissioning them on an individual basis (like Sonnie says above), but an entire class all at once? Daft. Besides, what's going to scare a Klingon ship more? A single Excelsior, or 5 refit-Connies?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Besides, a ship does more than simply shoot at the enemy. Is Starfleet going to throw away a whole load of useful ships simply because they look a bit old? I can see them regulating them to smaller duties, and decommissioning them on an individual basis (like Sonnie says above), but an entire class all at once? Daft. Besides, what's going to scare a Klingon ship more? A single Excelsior, or 5 refit-Connies?
See, I think this is an arguement in favor of the theory that the Polaris-Class is retrofitted Constitutions. Let's "theorize" that Starfleet planned on phasing out the Constitution-Fleet and replacing it with Excelsiors. Well, the need arises for a relatively small ship with a small crew for interdiction, or patrol, or what have you. So some bright guy at Starship R&D suggests a rather rapid refitting of the Connie-Class starships into the new Polaris-Class. Saves Starfleet time in designing a new ship - now all they have to do is some interior re-decorating.
quote:Why spend a year refitting an antiquanted starship when you can build a new Miranda (or possibly even an Excelsior) in the same timeframe that will serve far longer?
Jason, I thought you were in FAVOR of the theory that the Polaris-Class were retrofitted Connies?
Speaking of Connies ...
In that god-awful 6th season Red Squad episode, I think Nog makes a reference to a training ship which hasn't left the Sol System in like sixty or seventy years ... the USS Republic. This might be a stretch, but isn't it possible this ship might be *the* Republic from TOS? Heck, maybe there were two Connies used for training missions for Starfleet Academy, and one of those got sent to Wolf 359 (solving that mystery ).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Didn't Ron Moore state that he thought that the Republic was indeed the old Constitution-class ship?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Republic reference has been a point of contention ever since the episode aired. I seem to recall that someone official (the writer?) claimed that it was, in fact, intended to be the TOS ship.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:Why spend a year refitting an antiquanted starship when you can build a new Miranda (or possibly even an Excelsior) in the same timeframe that will serve far longer?
Jason, I thought you were in FAVOR of the theory that the Polaris-Class were retrofitted Connies?
I'm neither for or against: I'm just for the possibility.
quote:Because it almost certainly takes far longer than a year to build a Miranda or an Excelsior. Remember how long the Enterprise-D supposedly took?
But the Galaxy wasa new design with millions of tons more mass, ship complexity and some untested systems.
A Miranda (by STVI) could indeed be built in a year: the Fed a HUGE rescouses at it's disposal and the Miranda design was a long proven one with likely dozens (if not hundreds) of ships having already been built. An Excelsior would really have taken a couple of years to build but using the examples of the Galaxy or Sovvie is silly: the complexity is geometrically greater and the ships are ten times larger with far larger crews.
So: I think the initial Polaris starships might indeed have been built from decommisioned Connie Refit parts but if they made a whole class from the designs, they probably unsed only the Connie spaceframe, nacelles, torp launcher and not much else. The interior of the saucer would have to be severely altered to accomidate engineering, the greatly reduced crew size and mabye some small sutttlebay hangar under the saucer like the NX-01.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
One question: is it possible that Enterprise A was decomissioned, and then recomissioned under different name? (like, say... Yorktown? )
This way age of the ship doesn't matter anymore since it still remains in service, although under different name and under care of another crew.
And I don't think that Polaris is Connie refit. For one, I'm not sure that rebuilding it and relocating several key components its a viable option. Plus, if you intend to use older class components, its easier to just refit it, since you'll end with ship utilizing old components anyway.
And I believe that it was Connie secondary hull at Wolf359, because there are no visible new additions to the hull.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: One question: is it possible that Enterprise A was decomissioned, and then recomissioned under different name? (like, say... Yorktown? )
Actually, I quite like that idea. But I'm sure someone will find a reason to declare it silly.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A Miranda (by STVI) could indeed be built in a year: the Fed a HUGE rescouses at it's disposal and the Miranda design was a long proven one with likely dozens (if not hundreds) of ships having already been built.
Well, I'm sold on your awesomely complete proof.
quote:An Excelsior would really have taken a couple of years to build but using the examples of the Galaxy or Sovvie is silly: the complexity is geometrically greater and the ships are ten times larger with far larger crews.
And the Federation, presumably, had much more sophisticated systems available to aid design and construction, not to mention many more resources. I can easily see them taking the same amount of time to build, especially since the Excelsior was state-of-the-art.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
While the Enterprise could have been renamed and recommed, the question is why. Unless the E-B was already named and near completion, the E-A could have just stayed in service. It's the same physical ship. It would have been just slapping a different name on. The reason why it was probably done to the E-A in the first place from the Yorktown was that Starfleet wanted to give Kirk and company a new ship with the name Enterprise asap. Yorktown was probably coming in for refit or decomm. A new Yorktown may have been near completion and could have received the name change, but it was probably simpler and faster to slap a new name on the older Yorktown.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Of course, Starfleet is a bit eratic with ship ages. Riker says in "All Good Things" that the Ent-D was going to be decomissioned before it even hit 30, and that was a ship designed to last 100 years. The only possibility would be if the ship was badly damaged, and that would support the notion that Starfleet prefers to decomission ships rather than repair them (for god knows what reason).
Sometimes, in modern navies, ships are decommissioned for extensive refits, which may be an explanation for this. Imagine how long fixing that third nacelle would take Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Unlike the apparent majority of people here, I actually had a couple of days of Christmas holiday from the forum...
...But yes, I think the Polaris is a class unto its own, built specifically for some purpose that does not involve big deflector dishes or shuttlebays, and probably completed in an orderly manner by the very early 24th century. No other known Starfleet refitting has involved such major spaceframe changes - even in the rather absurd TMP refit, each component was merely replaced by a corresponding new one. Or do we also want to think of USS Yeager as an Intrepid refit, perhaps?
And yeah, using the Intrepid impulse grilles as deflectors sounds splendid! I wonder if the kitbashing involved carving out the torp tubes, though - either the Connie part or the Intrepid parts would have to be slimmed down at the bow to fit there.
And as for Scotty hitting that pipe, it would make perfect sense if the corridor was otherwise an old and utterly familiar one, but the pipe was an addition. It does protrude into the space in a very silly, afterthought'y manner. Scotty was probably thinking he'd be walking along a regular TOS-Connie or TMP-Connie corridor, neither of which would have this "new and improved" pipe. Be the ship a TOS-refit or a TMP-refit, it ain't dockyard-fresh, not with silly protruding pipes like that.
Regarding the retiring of entire ship classes, it happens all the time in the real world. Ships in perfect working order are scrapped because they are a bit too expensive to operate, or won't have a crew ever again because newer ships drain the pool, or don't meet current mission specifications and can't be cheaply refitted. I don't see the Soyuz (or, say, the Constitution, Constellation or Polaris) mass retirements as anomalies in need of explaining.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: While the Enterprise could have been renamed and recommed, the question is why.
Imagine, you're the chief Starfleet Admiral, and suddenly you find out that captain Kirk and his whole bridge crew is going to retire! For those admirals it must've appear almost unthinkable that Kirk would actually retire one day.
So what are you going to do with the ship? As we know, Starfleet Command decided to build Enterprise-B. So, what is the point of keeping Enterprise-A in space, under different crew, if you are going to decomission her anyway two, three years later?
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
outside of filmed canon, this transition has been dealt with by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Steven's novel "The Ashes of Eden" (they wrote it under the pen name 'William Shatner')
After ST:6, the Commander-in-Chief stepped down and was replaced by Admiral Drake, an old rival of Kirk's, who decommissions the E-A and arranges for it to be destroyed in torpedo tests, but ultimately ends up stripping it for use by another government, the Chal (a common practice with obsolete naval equipment in the real world).. of course, the guy was just being a dick and took Kirk's ship as a pawn in a political game in order to piss Kirk off, Kirk gets appropriately pissed off, finds that Drake has been committing all sorts of crimes involved in the looting of the weakened Klingon states, and kills the asshole.
Then he gets ready to go skydiving as the E-B is being completed.. the intervening time keeps with Generations in that the whole affair takes only a few months at most after ST:6 and before ST:G, allowing them to take place in the same year.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's possibly the lamest Star Trek book premise I've ever read. No wonder they penned it as William Shatner! We all expect crap from him.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't really see how the Enterprise-A could be recomissioned as another ship. I mean, that doesn't seem a fate fitting for the Federation flagship. Personally, I'm rather attached to the notion that the ship was decomissioned and stuck in the Fleet Museum.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
But that doesn't agree with "Relics".
Seriously, there's no way that Picard wouldn't have said that is was an Enterprise in the fleet museum if it was.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...Picard really would have mentioned it in the context of their conversation. The Connie in the Museum is probably an original version that was never refit. Possibly some ship that had always been a trainer and was retired to the museum alongside a Deadalus and the NX-02 or something... Mabye we can get someone to CGI us anice "fleet museum" scene with a tourist shuttlecraft taking a tour...
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Well, Picard was standing on the bridge of the TOS Enterprise when he said that one of these was in the fleet museum. I'm sure he was talking about a TOS style Constitution class ship - not a refit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Who says they only had one Constitution?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Kirk had the refit version the last time Scotty seved on it with him and (in 'Relics') when Riker said he was from the Enterprise, Scotty said that he expected Kirk had hauled her out of mothballs to come rescue him. Scotty couldn't have been thinking of the Enterprise-B and knew it was Harriman's ship anyway, so the Enterprise-A must've retained her registry and just been in storage (perhaps awaiting a berth in the Fleet Museum?)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Now there's an idea. Mabye something to commerate the first Khitomer Accords?
Or that .003 percent pattern degredation affected Scotty's long term memory.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:the Victory was never seen being towed. it was an active ship that rendezvoused with the E-D..
The footage of the Victory (which lasted for about five seconds) was the head-on shot of the approaching Stargazer form "The Battle" but the perspective was much farther away so that the viewer couldn't see the battle damage or the name "Stargazer" on the hull.
IMHO, this was a stupid shot. Obviously the producers felt they had to actually show the rendezvous (without building a new model), so the best stock footage shot they had at the time was of the Stargazer, so that's what they used. I personally think they shouldn't even have shown the Victory at all, if that's what they were going to use to represent it. It threw a monkey wrench into the hypothesis that Constellation-class ships weren't on active service as of 2363.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, the very best stock footage shot would be the ol' Hood rendevous scene that's played near endlessly through the first few seasons.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
But the Victory was yet again shown on the DS9 Casualty Chart of the Dominion War. So at least one Constellation was still around.
The Victory was also on the starship operations list during TNG with a mission of "Stellar Nuclei Population Survey".
The class vessel NX-1974 was still undergoing Certification Tests as of 'Trek VI' so as a starship class, the Constellation Class was newer than the Mirandas and they're still around in the 2370s.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: The class vessel NX-1974 was still undergoing Certification Tests as of 'Trek VI' so as a starship class, the Constellation Class was newer than the Mirandas and they're still around in the 2370s.
That has to be false, though; the Excelsior was a long-running project that had to have taken a lot longer to develop than a conventional starship like the Constellation. I'm guessing that the tests on the NX-1974 were nothing more than minor re-certification tests following some sort of minor refit or upgrade. After all, if the four-nacelle warp drive method needed some tweaking, it would make sense that it would have to be refined a few years after the launch...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Dukhat,
Also, a Constellation was shown as part of Picard's fleet in Redemption Pt. II. And that WASN'T reused footage!
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Although not canon, although it couldn't come from a more informed source, Rick Sternbach's article about the Constellation Class in ST:Mag Jan/03 indicated the USS Constellation launched June 15, 2284. Just to put a date on things.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Dukhat,
Also, a Constellation was shown as part of Picard's fleet in Redemption Pt. II. And that WASN'T reused footage!
No, that was the producer's throwing together every available model that they had in an attempt to create the impression of a "big fleet" (by TNG standards, anyway).
And considering that Picard's fleet was created at the last minute, the Constellation there could have been a ship pulled out of mothballs.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
And since that particular ship in the fleet has been shown to be the Hathaway (the registry was the same), that could prove PsyLiam's point as well.
I'm surprised they didn't use the Reliant, Grissom, or Excelsior model in that shot. But, obviously by this point they wanted to make use of the newest TNG-created ships instead of the old movie models.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Unless that Constellation was being stored convieniently close to the RNZ, I don't think it was mothballed ship. But of course, there's the surplus yard from the very same episode
And I believe that Enterprise-A was put in the museum. It's the best fate for any starship (besides "turning death into a fighting chance to live." )
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Kazeite,
I, uh, don't think there's a surplus yard in either episode of "Redemption." I think you might be thinking of "Unification."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why wouldnt the Constellation class still be in service though? It's more recent than many, and Picard's was in use during the Ambassador's heyday.
Those ships are probably part of "home fleets" within the Federation that patrol but dont do much exploring anymore. I'd imagine the same holds true with the MIranda
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And if that ship was the Hathaway, then Starfleet had to invest some time and money in the ship. Remember, when we saw it in "Peak Performance" the warp drive wasn't even working. For the ship to function in Picard's blockade, it must have undergone at least a minimal refit ... on the other hand, considering "Redemption" is post-BoBW, Starfleet may have recomissioned older starships to help plug the losses incurred at Wolf 359.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Didn't we see an Excelsior class ship as part of the "fleet flying away" shot in Redemption II.
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: And I believe that Enterprise-A was put in the museum. It's the best fate for any starship (besides "turning death into a fighting chance to live." )
No, seriously, stop it. Don't make me mention "Relics" again.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, please do Liam, it's so ... sexy when you do. Mrowr.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Pft. You are just attracted to my sexy roguish hair.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: And if that ship was the Hathaway, then Starfleet had to invest some time and money in the ship. Remember, when we saw it in "Peak Performance" the warp drive wasn't even working. For the ship to function in Picard's blockade, it must have undergone at least a minimal refit ...
Not necessarily. Remember Geordi commented how well maintained the engine core was. He said if it only had some antimatter they could operate it. I took Kolrami's line about the Hathaway being "rendered warp-inactive" as simply being they (Starfleet battle testers) made sure Hathaway didn't have warp drive available for the simulation to see how she fared in the tests.
It didn't have to mean that the ship was completley trashed and Oh, by the way good luck Riker!
I assumed the Hathaway was a spaceworthy (though inactive) vessel, specifically worked over to perform as needed for the test, which meant warp drive not allowed.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: It didn't have to mean that the ship was completley trashed and Oh, by the way good luck Riker!
Oh yeah, and that's why there were all sorts of stray trash and miscellaneous optical cables hanging from the ceiling on the Bridge...
Yeah, I know the ship wasn't in that bad shape, considering that they brought fusion power on pretty quickly. Still, all that garbage strewn about seems very unlike any Starfleet ship I know of.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Yeah, I know the ship wasn't in that bad shape, considering that they brought fusion power on pretty quickly. Still, all that garbage strewn about seems very unlike any Starfleet ship I know of.
The Hathaway was the academy Delta frat house before the tests...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Good point SoundEffect, I thought there'd been more repairs needed to the engines.
Most likely, the Hathaway may have been used for spare parts to keep other ships operational, which might account for the "trashiness" factor. I mean, if I remember right, Worf wasn't above ripping out spare wires from the bridge to suit another purpose.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yeah, but that's worth. He's direct like that. And he was also making a point to another officer that they'll have to be a bit "creative".
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Worth, eh? Interesting mispelling ... usually it's "wharf" ... Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Didn't we see an Excelsior class ship as part of the "fleet flying away" shot in Redemption II.
Nope. The only ships seen were the Enterprise, the Excalibur, the Sutherland and the Hathaway.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
And remember that this short moment was the biggest "fleet" shot in Star Trek up to that point? How things have changed...
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well, no. It equaled one. We'd already seen the Excalibur, Potemkin, Hood, Lexington fleet from TOS. And you could also count Wolf 359 if you wanted to.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
But the TOS fleet was just the same ship multiplied optically. And Wolf359 was just wreckage, no actual moving fleet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)