posted
"But, Officer, I didn't Think I Was Speeding."
For some reason, I didn't give this a whole lot of thought, until I was watching "Super Troopers", and I considered that the Federation's system of shipping lanes are probably governed by law ...
It's a given that the Federation operates shipping lanes -- they're probably routed based on quickest routes between member worlds and colonies and starbases, and avoidance of natural phenomena that could prove dangerous. No doubt they interconnect, and there's probably a system of "sub-routes" and so on.
I suppose Starfleet must have a great deal of resources devoted to patrol of its shipping lanes, not only to ensure the safety of the merchant vessels, but to make certain that Federation laws are being enforced. It wouldn't surprise me if many patrol ships did interdiction duties as part of their patrol, to make certain that merchant vessels weren't engaged in smuggling. This led me to speculate that merchant vessels entering Federation space from non-aligned worlds might have to endure a rather lengthy custom inspection.
Random Thoughts:
* Starfleet Starbases (especially the "Mushroom" type) probably have a commercial aspect to them, possibly serving as warehouse space for large shipping operations to distribute goods to their fleets.
* Evidence for starship patrol: DeSoto grumbles about the Enterprise's mission while referencing that all he does on the Hood is fly from starbase to starbase. I suppose its possible the Hood is being used for cargo transportation, but its also possible that DeSoto is just grumbling about pulling over spice freighters for going warp six in a warp four zone.
Where's your tail?
For every traditional Starfleet starship -- i.e., Constitution-Class, Excelsior-Class, Galaxy-Class, with a saucer, neck, engineering section and nacelles - there is almost a "scout" type counter-part, with simply a saucer and two nacelles (a bit of an oversimplification, especially as regards the Nebula-Class). Why is this so?
My thoughts.
Starfleet likes to build two kinds of ships: the first are big, impressive, powerful, designed for long-term exploration missions outside of the Federation. These require big crews. However, Starfleet also requires starships to patrol its borders, keep the Federation's shipping lanes open, and do a bunch of stuff that doesn't require an 800-man crew.
So where does this leave us?
The designers are told what Starfleet is looking for in a ship. What mission-role will it fill? Science, exploration, deep-space indepedent study, transport, medical? The ship is designed -- engines, saucer, nacelles, the whole ten yards. Now, Starfleet orders twenty of these for a production run over the next 15 years. Starfleet also desires fifty smaller ships, to fill basic patrol duties (think the Miranda-Class, as compared to Constitution-Class). So they could order a completely new starship designed, right?
But, if they use components from the "base" class, it makes it easier on the Ship Yards: they can manufacture the same nacelles, the same basic saucer shells. Sure, the interiors won't be anything like the "base" class, but if we proceed from the assumption that the hull of the starship -- and the engines -- are the most expensive part of a starship (in terms of production, cost, etc.), building two or three classes of starship using those base components probably saves the Federation a hefty bundle in tax dollars.
Wow, you got fat!
In the "starship floor plan" thread, the notion of the Constitution-Class having "sub-classes" is dismissed as foolishness. And yet we know that the Excelsior-Class has a subclass, as seen represented by the Enterprise-B and the Lakota.
Random Thoughts:
* Why do sub-classes exist? For the Excelsior-sub-class, why does IT exist? Did Starfleet decide that the Excelsior, as it was, did not meet their requirements? If so, why was the sub-class abandoned? By my mark, we've only seen two sub-class Excelsiors.
posted
Maybe, but they would not HAVE to be named. We've argued before that they could be more akin to the USAF, which produces "Blocks" of the same fighter designation which can be substantially different on the inside and out. Case in point: the new F-18E Super Hornet, which is a completely different aircraft than the original from 1978 - it just shares the same basic look. And yet, we still call it an F-18.
posted
I didn't say they would have to be re-named, I did say, "why would they build a sub-class?"
New mission profile? Desire for a starship with the defensive capabilities of an Excelsior-Class, but with the scientific capabilities of the Oberth? I dunno. That's what I want to know!
posted
Well, it's really a non-issue because we simply KNOW there are a lot of subclasses. There are about 5-6 Nebula variants, 3 Mirandas and the Soyuz, 3 Galaxy variants and the 2 Excelsiors you mentioned. Oh, and two Ambassadors of course. And, if you like the SFTM ships, the Saladin and Hermes.
The problem with the fandom Connie subclasses is that it has just become a really silly long list of different subclasses that have no basis in any canon at all. There are 'officially' just 2 versions of the Constitution (since the official sources tend to ignore the 2 pilot versions of the model). I do like to include those 2 versions, though. But for all I care, they are just Constitution class.
No, but you referred to that other thread w/ the sub-class discussion. And, over there, it was argued that the idea of differently-named sub-classes was silly. No-one ever said all ships of a given class are identical. Only that a new name isn't given to the class every time the Bussard collector covers are changed. So, the second-to-last paragraph of your original post is unnecessary. The opinion expressed about the Connie "sub-classes" is not contradictory to the fact that the Ex. has a "sub-class".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:No-one ever said all ships of a given class are identical.
I'm sorry (allow me to clarfiy), I thought the arguement (in the other thread) was that a different deck arrangement alone does not make for a sub-class. With the Galaxy-class, we know that the interior arrangement of corridors and rooms can be changed -- i.e., the TNG Tech Manual and Worf's line regarding his familiary with Yamato's layout. Yet no one is suggesting that with each re-arrangement, a new sub-class is formed.
The arguement I am making is that in the case of the Excelsior sub-class, it really *IS* a sub-class of the Excelsior-Class. The secondary and primary hulls have been expanded dramtically, and the nacelles have been beefed up.
posted
However, that would make almost every single starship a variant. We've aleady established that most starships within a class will have minor differences here and there.
Patrol stuff - I'm sure that patrol duties, which most principal starships have been seen doing at some time, are of notable import for every crew. There are doubtless lots of ships, doing just that on the outskirts of any given territory, depending on the liklihood and frequency of pirate attacks. But we know that even as far back as the 22nd centruy big freighters had little protection for even years at a time (ECS Fortunate et. al.). but what's suitable for patrol duties? Given the STILL low speed of most non-fleet ships, runabouts and smaller starships would be more than adequate, with a smaller number of largers ships for good measure. This is probably a "You're the Admiral!" scenario, actually.
The Tail thing - We've discussed this in the past. The TNGTM notes "Explorer" as one ceategory of starship that does all the cool stuff, with other designations below it.
Mark
Additional: a quick Google on "sub-class" (with "subclass" and "sub class" for good measure) shows almost NO use of the term as a naval military term, except rarely as a colloquialism. In fact, it only starts to be used when you hit sci-fi websites! Given this, I would not accept the term except as a non-canon classification, as it has certainly never showed up in any epsiode. Terms like "variant" and "block" TECHNICALLY fit in the same boat, however they are much more commonly used in the same context.
quote: There are 'officially' just 2 versions of the Constitution (since the official sources tend to ignore the 2 pilot versions of the model). [/QB]
Actually the variant of the connie refit from the DS9TM was filmed and (likely( used in several background shots of fleet action. -that's the version with no secondary hull.
Sub-classes could stem from several obvious reasons: 1.) New technologies are incorperated into existing ships and all further ships of that class are built with the tech already installed (connie refits and the possibility that the Enterprise A was a new starship)
2.) New Federation member worlds add their unique technology to the established Federation classes and some accomidation to the new species biological and cultural requirements has to be given (or everyone would be really annoyed that those darn humans get to design everything).
3.) New threats have to be prepared for (new shield generators to block the Dominion's polaron beam for example)could lead to a sub-class to deal with the need for added firepower (like the Galaxy variant USS Venture) .
I'd imagine that there are Nebula classes with strictly weapons or sensory pods that we have not seen. There would likely be several more variants of the Ambassador class (or any class that served for so long). Just my two cents.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And yet with the Excelsior sub-class is abandoned.
Mark: I didn't use "varient" in a classification manner, but rather just to mean that two ships of the same classes have differences between them. For technical purposes, I'm sure Starfleet designates a starship a "Constitution-I" or a "Constitution-II" or something (and probably only for construction purposes).
posted
While it's already been pointed out, I'd just like to re-affirm the point that my argument was simply about giving new class names to variants. (ie, Bonhomme Richard-class or Achernar-class.)
Canonically, the Phoenix and Sutherland are both Nebula-class. The Reliant, Lantree, and Saratoga are all Miranda-class. The Hood and the Enterprise-B are both Excelsior-class.
That's all I was saying. The whole idea of separate class names being given to variants and calling them sub-classes is a purely fandom concept. It might have made sense at the time it was thought up, but it's been invalidated by what has come since.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Snay: And yet with the Excelsior sub-class is abandoned.
Who says? THe Lakota is still in active service in the DS9 era and nearly kicks the Defiant's ass. I doubt the Excelsior refit was abandoned , but the production run may have been limited to a select few shipyards.....or they could have been testbeds for new technologies designed for integration in the larger Excelsior fleet.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Due to the low numbers of Excelsior-II class starships seen in TNG, DS9, and VOY (as compared to the Excelsion-I class*), I say it is obvious that one of the three happened:
a) The Excelsior-II was designed for a limited run.
b) The Excelsior-II program was scrapped for one reason or another, and no further starships were produced.
c) The Excelsior-II was produced in VERY low numbers (compared to other Excelsior-Class vessels) over the years.
* Where Excelsior I refers to ships matching the exterior design of the Excelsior, and Excelsior II refers to ships matching the exterior design of Enterprise-B.
posted
Just because we didn't see them, doesn't mean they weren't there. There are plenty of unseen classes that have been mentioned, but you don't say that they all had limited production runs, do you?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
