Over the years, a lot of people have expressed concern about seeing ship classes like Excelsior and Miranda close to a hundred years after their presumed original design dates. I guess the assumption is that the design must be too old to function effectively in the TNG-era.
However, occasionally I think about this and think that it may make a lot of sense. There are many advantages to a tried-and-true design; any flaws would have long since been identified through the years in service, and the manufacturing processes for new builds and replacement parts will have been perfected. For something that we can assume is as complex and expensive, resource-wise, as a starship, this makes a lot of economic sense. Likewise, it is unclear what the downside to continuing to use these designs is. If upgrades to the internals are of largely the same character as they progress, there probably isn't a real downside.
By this, I mean, if engine component X2 is about the same size and shape (very roughly) as component X1, which it replaces, then there is no need for a radically new ship design. Thus, the internals of the ships we see in the TNG-era could be quite different where technology advances have dictated, while other components may be unchanged from the TOS-era if those components were designed particularly well in the first place.
Indeed, this may explain why we saw a preponderance of Excelsiors and Mirandas in the Dominion War. Perhaps some of those ships are actually (prepare for some blasphemy! ) brand-new. If the manufacturing processes that churn out the battle-tested Excelsior and Miranda designs operate faster and more efficiently than those that produce newer designs, it would make a whole ton of sense, in my view, to be making those if it means getting the ships to the front lines faster.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or then there is no arms race in the 24th century.
It may be that everything worth inventing has been invented already, for the time being. Sure, there may have been propulsive innovations, but those might not be strategically significant: while jets outdated prop planes for the most part, Mach 3 jets haven't outdated transonic ones to this day, and the available knowhow for building 50-knot ships has not made navies adopt such speeds yet. And the weapons of the 23rd century Mirandas may be every bit as good as those of the Prometheus class.
Klingons seemed to have all their 24th century stuff in the mid-22nd already. It would have sufficed for the Earthlings/Feds to achieve parity with that; they could then stop evolving, just like the Klingons apparently had.
Also, Starfleet has major commitments to exploration and exploitation of space, and space hasn't evolved a bit between the 22nd and 24th centuries. A survey ship from 2132 could still perform her job in 2379, unless some fancy new instrument required more onboard power or something. But the odds are, modern instrumentation is less power-hungry and more compact than the older stuff, so if a replacement is necessary, it will be possible.
The new ship designs from the 24th century could then be technologically slightly different from their predecessors, but operationally just more of the same-o. Why retire the older generations when they still might have 500 years of structural (and, for all we know, operational) life left?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Which could explain why there could be Novae and Prometheii flying around two centuries after their introduction that Archer was able to see.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
And even if armament is a concern, I think it's likely that new weapons can be adapted to the existing designs. Likewise, advances in propulsion may not depend on changing other elements or the overall structure of a ship. If these things are built to last, then they are likely built with an eye toward substantial upgradability.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I don't see the problem with older designs going on and on. If they're structurally sound (internally - the keel/chassis/whatever you call it - and externally - the hull), then as a ship they're fine. Power conduits and life support channels are unlikely to change that much over time. So really if things like transporters, replicators, control interfaces, sensors, comms, weapons, defensive systems etc. are modular and can be pulled out and replaced/upgraded, what's the problem? The only real major changes are in warp engine technology, and at the end of the day they all work on the same principles - they generate a warp field, and providing they do the work to develop configuration-settings so that older engines can generate newer warp field geometries, without being massively inefficient or dangerous, then that's that sorted. As for the other kind of propulsion, impulse power, it's my understanding that hasn't really changed at all.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I think of it like cars. In the fifties I suspect you didn't see a lot of 1903 Model A's on the roads, but here in 2007 I do see a goodly number of fourty and fifty-year-old cars on the road. Automotive technology has certainly advanced in the last fifty years, but not so much as in the first fifty. If I need to, I can have a newer, better engine installed or put a (LOA recommended) aftermarket stereo in my fifty-year old car and listen to my iPod.
Scale that up to the size and complexity of starship design and the prevalence of older designs doesn't seem so odd. Even in the cashless society of the Federation, I think we can assume that a starship would constitute the equivalent of billions of dollars worth of resources. I suspect they'd try to get the most mileage out of their investments. And as was said above, transport, scientific and diplomatic missions wouldn't necessarily need the new-hotness.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Everything is geared to make the human experience more efficent/time-effective. Consider that we (as a species) still be sail around in WWII-Vietnam era boats (at lsat we pawn them off to third world countries' navies), but the cutting edge fleets have moved on.
Starfleet would still have many uses for a 100-year-old ship, but not as it's vanguard f exploration/defense. If nothing else, colony settlement/resupply and diplomatic missions are always in high demand (and what's a first-contacter gonna know between a Norway and a Miranda anyhow?).
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
What's that thing called where Nike builds inherent flaws in their shoes so they fall apart after five minutes and you have to buy new ones?
Starfleet would be building these things to last as it is, and with the vast technological skills and advantages they have over today's, it shouldn't be hard to imagine them building space vehicles which can operate for such a long period of time without becoming obsolete.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
You all talk about Starfleet "building ships to last", but you're forgetting about the admiral in TWoK wanting to scrap the Enterprise refit after only 20 years of age. So a design lives on for 100+ years but the individual units' lifespan is just a fifth of that? Not a good ratio.
And considering the Prometheus could put a Nebula class out of a fight with three phaser shots while the Reliant was evenly matched against a Constitution should say something about weapons grades.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Shooting down the whole argument on the basis of the Constitution-class doesn't make sense. Very few Connies seem to have been built, and the extensive refits that they needed suggests they were built to an older, outmoded design philosophy that didn't allow for easy upgrades. Especially given the nonsensical "twenty years old" bit - the ship itself was 40 years old, the refit 15.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Maybe at some point in the five year mission, the Enterprise was destroyed at Z'ha'dum, before being rebuilt by Admiral Morrow...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I always figured that later model starships (like the Miranda which was no TOS refit) were built to be more upgradable than the old Connies- swappable modules and modular everything made the later TMP-era ships nigh infinitely upgradable (just look at the bridge of the Lantree).
There may be other concerns as well- the Enterprise had been in a LOT of damaging situations before the ass-kicking it took in TWOK (possibly resulting in internal framework damage not easily repaired) and it was a ship already reduced to trainer status, so why not scrap it? It's not like it's the only ship within light years of Earth or anything. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Just look at the state of the 1701-A when Kirk & co took command. Everything had been installed, but nothing worked, suggesting the refit of that particular vessel hadn't been a major Starfleet priority.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
It's also possible that the Contitution was one of the designs that wasn't well-executed - one that wasn't able to stand the test of time, so to speak.
Not sure what the Nebula/Prometheus example shows. Starship battles aren't like warhammer or rolls of the dice; there are many variables presumably at play. In addition, we know that the weapons of starships are upgradeable (Lakota in "Paradise Lost" for example).
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
The whole idea about the Constitution not being a well-executed design could explain why there was supposedly only 12 in Kirk's time. Of course, if you follow other schools of thought (as I do) there were tons of them lolly-gagging around...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So many in fact that earth was never defended in any way... It may be that the Connie and it's refit were testbeds for new technology- stuff that went into designs with more service lifespans. ...explaning why there were only 12 in service. Enterprise aside, it might not have been the most successful design ever made either- we saw several of the 12 get wiped out.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Enterprise aside, it might not have been the most successful design ever made either- we saw several of the 12 get wiped out.
True, several got wiped out... but they got wiped out by friggin' ridiculously powerful ships or entities. The Intrepid got nabbed by the giant amoeba-thing, the Constellation got zapped by the planet killer (but was still operational, barely!), and the Defiant just plain disappeared. The only ship we saw actually destroyed by conventional means was the Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer." So I think those ships are tougher than you give them credit for!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Indeed. It's generally that whenever we DO see another Connie, it's in trouble - going all the way to the Yorktown in ST4 - which makes them seem pretty pathetic.
Mark
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnny: What's that thing called where Nike builds inherent flaws in their shoes so they fall apart after five minutes and you have to buy new ones?
I think the term is "Obsolecent Society" Wherein everything has a lifespan and once it expires the thing, be it shoe, or car, will fall apart. Forcing you to buy a new one. That's one of the reasons you see all those 40 year old cars still on the road. They were built to last. While in todays world, once the warranty runs out, the thing will most likely fall to pieces.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The term is "Planned Obsolescence". I first became aware of the policy when I purchaced a 1980 Chevy Monza that had a planned life of four years. And yes, I purchased it used for $2000....in 1984. A couple months later is when my mechanic enlightened me. And lightened my wallet by $600.
As for the Connies, you would have to think they're pretty tough old gals. There may have been only 12 liker her in the initial days, but we have no way of knowing the final number, not to mention all the "refits" that were produced.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
And I always got the impression that when a Connnie went the way of the tank top it was some big shit, not "just another starship".
Besides, who cares if they were rubbish? Anything that looks that good doesn't have to be perfect. Just look at Concorde - it used more fuel than Texas, was louder than The Who, and had less room than a bean tin, but did that realy matter? And don't you dare mention Air France or I'll come round your house and stamp on all your toys.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Indeed. It's generally that whenever we DO see another Connie, it's in trouble - going all the way to the Yorktown in ST4 - which makes them seem pretty pathetic.
Right. But like with all plot-driven stuff we must try to filter out what the ships could do under normal circumstances. It's the same as with the "rare" diseases or the "unlikely" transporter accidents which for some reason happen frequently.
All in all, I like the concept of always refitting old hulls to the newest standards. They did a bit too much with the refit in TMP. In contrast, the 24th century Mirandas and Excelsiors should at least have visually different engines and perhaps visible lifeboats and other details. But the concept is not far out.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) brand-new. If the manufacturing processes that churn out the battle-tested Excelsior and Miranda designs operate faster and more efficiently than those that produce newer designs, it would make a whole ton of sense, in my view, to be making those if it means getting the ships to the front lines faster.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)