Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Excelsiors, Birds of Prey?

This is topic Excelsiors, Birds of Prey? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1092.html

Posted by dih1138 on :

What possible explanation could there be, that these ship classes are still in use? The Constitution only lasted for about 50 years. How could the Excelsior class, based on the same engeneering principles as the refit Constitution class, have an opperational lifetime twice as long? The Bird of Prey is a contemporary of the Excelsior. It's design could not possibly accomadate new innovations. Why keep it, and also produce lots of them?

------------------
Ian Hughes

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :

The easy answer is, of course, that when TNG premiered, those were the only models TPTB had access to at the time, so they used them (along with the Reliant, Grissom, and the K'Tinga models).

It was only years after the show began that they were popular enough & had money enough to start building newer models.

------------------
Lisa: "Don't you remember the story of Oedipus?"
Homer: "Maybe five dollars will refresh my memory."
Lisa (angrily): "Oedipus was the story of a man who kills his father and marries his mother!"
Homer: "Uggh! Who pays for that wedding?"

Shabren's Final Prophecy: Star Trek: Legacy

[This message has been edited by Dukhat (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The Excelsior-Class was built to last longer. Look at the Galaxy-Class -- an operational lifeline of a century! Also, production of the Excelsior-Class may well have continued for several decades, so the ships of that class we see in TNG weren't built until decades after Star Trek VI. You also left out the Oberth-Class, which is still in service, and the Miranda-Class.

Most probably, the Constitution-Class was stopped production at some point prior to the TOS movies. When Starfleet began running low on Constitution-Class ships, they decided to retire the -Class in favor of current designs still in production. That is just a theory.

But honestly, if employing design-upgrades (the TNG Hood could be Excelsior-Variant XII for all we know, in terms of interior layout, warp engines, etc.), refits, etcetra, the basic class design of any starship could continue for a very long time. And with a large an area as the United Federation of Planets has to protect and explore, it makes sense to employ only those ships which can last for the longest possible time.

Klingons have several classes of "birds of prey" -- in Generations, Worf identifies Lursa and B'tor's BOP as an "older class" with a defective plasma coil -- this tends to hint that although the BOPs share a common hull, they are constantly being redesigned and uprated. Also, we saw in Redemption that Klingon military forces are controlled by powerful "families": they might not choose to discard an old ship still capable of fighting even if it hits the century mark.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 13, 2001).]

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

The Excelsior class was probably built to last longer. The Constitution/refit was a defective design which was later replaced by the Excelsior class. The Miranda class was probably just well liked by Starfleet to discard. If you can upgrade a ship then why replace it? If exploration was all that the Oberth did then why do you need all the fancy new warp drives and weapons?

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, the Oberth would still be in need of upgrades. Swap out the sensor pods underneath, maybe retrofit the interior spaces to make them more convenient ...

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

The Constitution was a defective design? Are you talking about the class of ship that lasted for half a century? (I'd say that's pretty impressive. Of course, you could argue that the refit design was defective, but the original design? Pah!)

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I would imagine that the Constitution-Class was designed with only a fifty-year operational life-span. Starfleet then retired the class in favor of newer ships with a longer operational lifespan.

Posted by crobato on :

That would make sense since the Oberth and the Miranda class ships are the only other 23rd century ships to go that far.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well -- you left out the Excelsior and Constellation-Classes, crobato.

Although, I'd imagine the Constellation-Class was retired in early TNG ... we saw Stargazer, a derlict, in The Battle; Victory in Elementary, Dear Data; and Hathaway, a retired ship, in Peak Performance.

Anyway, it would be my guess that the Constellation-Class was retired at about that time.

Posted by Omega _Glory on :

The Constitution/refit a defective design? Yeah, thats a good joke. The reason we didn't see but one shot of a Constitution-refit hull (BOBW), was that the ship design was far too recognizable. It's use would have overshadowed the series that it was used in (TNG, DS9, VOY). That class is too typecast as Kirk's ship. The studio minature is now on permanent display at the Franklin Mint. There was Constitution-refit wreckage in the debris field in Best of Both Worlds II. Starfleet was pulling ships out of mothballs in that one!

Now for a Star Trek reason why the Constitution-refit class was canceled:

The original Constitution class ships numbered perhaps fifteen or so by the end of Kirk's first 5 yr mission. It is likely that several of the destroyed ships were replaced (Constellation, Defiant, Intrepid, Ecalibur) and the ships that were heavily damaged were likely repaired (Lexington, Hood, Potmepkin, Exeter).

Initially it makes sense that the orig ships would be refitted after the Enterprise had proven the design in testing. With the aggressivness of the Klingons and Romulans in TOS, Starfleet would likely have increased their fleet. Smaller, faster, specailized ships would be developed to help the Constitution-refits insure the security of the Federation. This would lead to the development of ships like the Miranda class and the scout ships (mentioned in ST:TMP). Also it would lead to research on the feasibility of much larger ships, the Excelsior class.

So, during the refit era of the Constitution class (2269 to the 2290's or so), there would undoubtably be some new construction of these, but we would also see lots of Mirands, possibly in several configurations (research, destroyers, light cruisers, ect). Mirandas are likely much less expensive and less time consuming to build than Constitution-refits. And although they are not their equal in combat(thats why Kahn had to attack the Enterprise when her shields were down, otherwise he had no chance) or in a general purpose role, they could be tailored for specific roles or missions and likely be better for that niche. For example, a Miranda set up soley for research is probably a better science vessel than the Enterprise since the E has to be a mulitpurpose (science, combat, diplomatic, rescue, ect) vessel. The same logic would follow for other specialized ships. Imagaine a Miranda "Heavy Destroyer" giving up its research and VIP facilities for additional weapons, power, and shielding to counter the Klingon K'Tinga's. It would probably be a pretty tough little ship.

So we have increased prodution of specialized hulls that are easier to build and deploy than the Constitutions. This would lead to drydocks with no room for Constitution-refits. Add to this the increase in friction with the Klingons during the 23 years between ST:TMP and ST:VI and Starfleet would definitly want an increase in fleet size. The quickest way to get ships out is to build smaller, more specialized hulls. I am sure the Constitution-refit fleet would get some new construction ships during the last thirty years of the 23rd century, but not as many as the smaller, mission-specific classes would get.

And then, by 2290, the Excelsior has completed her trial runs and her design is a success. By the time of ST:VI, there are probably several Excelsior class hulls in drydock. Indeed, the Enterprise herself was going to be decommissioned because...............the Enterprise-B was due to launch six months after ST:VI and they needed the "Enterprise" name. Evidently the Enterprise was put into mothballs after being decommissioned since Scotty mentioned that in Relics. Perhaps maybe she was converted into a fleet museum since the most legendary Captain of them all was her commmander. So with Excelsior class hulls being laid down in the late 2280's and early 2290's, one could assume that any unstarted Constitution-refit contracts would be cancelled and current ships under construction would be the last ones built.

So perhaps this (or something like it) was the reason for the lack of Const-refit hulls in the latter 24th century. Or maybe its just that Berman/Braga just don't give a rat's backside about continuity. Certainly appears so with Voyager.

------------------
Hunting is a way of life, and mine would have been infinitely poorer without it.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

What about this...

Constitution - 50 year life span
Constellation - 75
Excelsior 75-100
Galaxy 100+

------------------
"Yar, a lesbian? That girl had a sex drive! First, Data in Naked Now, then, in
Hide and Q, she hits on Picard! "Oh, if only you weren't the captain..." God! If
Denise Crosby hadn't left the series, she'd've slept with the entire senior staff by
now!" Jeff Kardde - March 7, 2001

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Who says the Constitution only had a fifty year life span? Just because the Enterprise was retired in the mid-2290s doesn't mean that all the Constitutions were. For all we know the last Constitution was retired in the 2350s.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

To me, whether or not the Ent-A was the last of her kind in service depends on whether or not they built any "Enterprise-class" ships from scratch or not. It's perfectly feasible that Starfleet only refit the remaining Constitutions and never bothered building any fresh ones with the new design. That way, all the remaining few ships could easily have been destroyed or decommissioned by 2293. Of course, we'll probably never know for sure either way. And yes, this means the Ent-A was another ship that was renamed (Yorktown or otherwise).

------------------
"Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." (Danny Vinyard, American History X)
Dax's Ships of Star Trek

Posted by DARKSTAR on :

I think that the Enterprise A was like 1 of 3 left in service by 2293. The Constitution class was probally only mean't to be around for 50 years. The Excelsior and Miranda class were relatively new designs and had proven how reliable they were in the field. The constitution refit although a good design had it flaws and had shown these flaws in the field.

Posted by Eclipse (Member # 472) on :

Anyone remember Admiral Morrow's line about the Enterprise being 'x' years old. I know he got the 'x' wrong (20 instead of 40), but that gives us some idea of what the intended operational lifetime for a Connie was.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Gene Roddenberry said that the Enterprise-A was the renamed Yorktown, which explains why the ship was being retired from service after Star Trek VI: she was coming to the end of her operational service.

The Enterprise is actually on display in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. It's quite beautiful, hanging from the enterence to whatever exhibit they decide to display it outside of.

I think Constitution-Class ships were retired a lot earlier than 2350. Relics established that only one ship was left, and Picard had seen it in the Fleet Museum. I think that's good evidence that the Class has been retired for quite some time.

Why do people insist on calling the Connie-refit the Enterprise-Class? Is there ANY canonical data to support this?

Posted by Omega _Glory on :

Darkstar,

The Const class had flaws? And just what were these "flaws"? Anything real info here or are you just making suppositions?

------------------
Hunting is a way of life, and mine would have been infinitely poorer without it.

Posted by Omega _Glory on :

Also the Enterprise-A was likely a new ship, not a refit. For one thing, the refit program was well into it run, some ten years or so, so it is likely the orig Const ships were completed by then. Also, at this time, the Const were the main line ships of the fleet. The Federation had expanded, so a few more ships would have been needed, along with the smaller classes. Twelve big ships would not have been enough to cover the Federation of the late 2200's. Scotty also refers to the ship as "new" and the ship was full of bugs, just like new cars are sometimes.

------------------
Hunting is a way of life, and mine would have been infinitely poorer without it.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I think Scotty meant "new" as in: to the name Enterprise. The new USS Enterprise.

The Yorktown took heavy damage from the probe, explaining why Scotty's having trouble with repairs. In Starfleet HQ, you can see the Yorktown's captain explaining how the ship has no power and they're trying to deploy a solar sail. And now that the Yorktown is renamed Enterprise, Scotty's gotta fix all the problems.

Even if the Enterprise-A was a new ship, why would she then be retired a few years later? When the ship left Khitomer, she was en-route to Earth for decomissioning.

Starfleet didn't need to rely on the Constitution-Class ships to protect its borders. There was an existing fleet of Miranda-Class ships, with Excelsior-Class ships beginning production, and Constellation-Class ships about to be introduced (or had been already -- anyone know the lowest registry we saw on a Constellation?) Starfleet wasn't short of ships by any means.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

What I meant was that the design had various flaws. If the Enterprise-nil was refitted from the original design then it have structural flaws as the refit was designed around the original design. If Decker is right then there is about 10% left of the orginal Enterprise. If the Enterprise was completely newly built from scratch then that 10% of the original ship config. would go somewhere else.

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

Posted by TonyB on :

Greetings Fellow Shipmates,
I'm new here - actually, I've been lurking reading the postings for the last 6 months or so. I'm looking forward to discussing starship design with all of you.

I've been reading this thread and have some comments:

Would you consider the possibility that the refit Constitutions were retired purely for political reasons? That seems more feasible, given the fact that other ship classes are still operating (with upgrades I assume).

Regarding the Ent having flaws, I have to admit that the writers think the ship has some. It has bothered me that the Ent had problems when it was supposed to be the flagship of Starfleet. At the time of ST:TMP, the Ent withstood Vger's attack. (At least the 1st salvo). Yet in the later movies, the ship has serious operational problems.

I also read in this post that the Miranda is not able to stand up to the Constitutions in combat. I'm not so sure about that. I've read that the Reliant was a heavy frigate and ST2:WOK certainly supports this.

If you recall, the Reliant fired 2 types of phasers: the "regular" thin red line type (which came from the
button type phaser emitters) and the wide white type (which came from the tips of the roll-bar mounted tip phaser emitters). I've heard this phaser referred to as a mega-phaser or phaser cannon. That phaser punched directly through the hull of the Ent! It was certainly more powerful than the standard type which cut through the hull much more slowly.

As far as operational lifetimes of starships and whether or not the Yorktown was renamed Ent, I will say
that the people in charge of "canon" (how I loathe that word) really screwed things up. I've read at least 3 different "offical" versions of what ship the Ent was supposedly renamed from.

You could refit a starship, or anything else for that matter, for as long as you wanted. I would assume that for whatever reason, Starfleet retired most of the Ent types and kept the others current through upgrades & refits.

One last thought: the current revision of what is "official" starship design irritates me to no end. That is how a lot of the starship continuity problems developed. I really want to know why the current producers/designers have decided to just ignore official material?

Whew. That was a lot for my 1st post.
Regards,
Tony

Posted by Evolved (Member # 389) on :

Couldn't it just be that the new Excelsiors replaced the Constitution in the role of space exploration ship much like the Galaxies replacing the Ambassadors?

BTW, the Sovvie was not designed to replace the Galaxy-class!

------------------
Ace

"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Posted by dih1138 on :

Still these spaceframes could not possibly accomodate 100 years of new technology. The spaceframes themselves would need to be rebuilt to maintain durability and strength. And also, how could Starfleet planners tactically consider using a fleet of aging ships to augment relativly few newer designs against, for example, the Romulans? The Romulans have what seems to be a large fleet of Warbirds, which outclass by leaps and bounds Starfleet's most abundant ship the Excelsior. Why not replace it with the Nebula? Or the Ambassador? If Starfleet has the resources to constantly rebuild and refit ships, why design new ships at all? Why not just incorporate new technology into age old designs?

------------------
Ian Hughes

[This message has been edited by dih1138 (edited March 14, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Please press 'Enter' somewhere in your messages...

The Reliant had the element of surprise. Plus, the first volleys hit the engineering deck and the main torpedo bay, pretty good aiming there.
And we never even saw where the aft torpedo hit...

It could perhaps make quicker turns due to less mass than the Constitution class, but it is essentially the same ship.

I don't think there were two different phaser types or they would've used them in other classes if it was successful.
My guess would be unreliable GFX...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

What about the fact that the Enterprise was a Cadet training ship? Last time I checked that aging ships were given that role (except Valiant for some reason) I don't think that Starfleet would have retired the Enterprise as the Flagship after 15 years with no good reason. (This is assuming that Constitution/refit was the only havy cruiser type in Starfleet at that time)

What about political reasons? So you're saying that the Constitution/refit was retired in favor of an untested class that failed at it's own experiments? It's a possbility but...

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :

All of the Excelsior- and Miranda-class ships that we've seen in the TNG/DS9 era have had newer registry numbers. Most have been in the NCC-31xxx range for the Miranda, and the NCC-42xxx range for the Excelsior. By most estimates that's around 2325 or 2330.

Ships are known to remain in service for 50 years or even more. Heck, the USN's USS Constitution is more than 200 years old! (Granted, it's not REALLY an active vessel anymore, but it's certainly seaworthy.) So it's not a stretch for some of the newer Excelsior-class ships to still be in service in the DS9 years.

IIRC, the USS Ronald Reagan (which was launched last week) has a lifetime of 50 years or so. The USS Nimitz is pushing 40 or 45 years as well, I believe.

------------------
You know, you really should keep a personal log. Why bore others needlessly?
The Gigantic Collection of Star Trek Minutiae

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

The Nimitz is pushing 30 years at most. The Enterprise (CVN-65) is already 40 years old. She's not due to be replaced until 2018 or so. That would make the Big 'E' nearly 60 years old at decommisioning.

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Enterprise is being replaced in 2013 by CVNX-1 (CVN-78), the first of a new class of supercarrier,

------------------
"No, 3 & 6 are mandatory, so you only have to do them if you want"

Alex, fellow classmate, trying to explain an assignment (2/2/01)

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

That would still make her nearly 60 years old. Okay just a little over 50 years, but that's still impressive.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

The reason why the Bird of Prey remains in service after so many years is probably simply a cultural difference. Feds think that their ships have to be modern in order to be effective - and for them, modern means "no part of the ship is older than a given number of years, by DESIGN".

Klingons think the same - except for them, modern means "no part of the ship is older than a given number of years, by CONSTRUCTION". The basic design may remain unchanged for centuries if not for millennia, while old ships rot away and new ones are built to the same design to replace them. When enemy technological advances make it impossible for one ship of the original design to defeat the enemy, the Klingons do not design a new ship (at least not as fast as the Feds) - they simply build TWO ships of the original design, and destroy the enemy with those. Then they build four ships, or ten, or add another disruptor cannon with slightly more range, or increase the yield or number of torps carried by some fraction, or upgrade the shield generators... That may be cheaper for them, or more warriorlike, or just plain easier. They probably laugh at the idiotic Feds who waste so much resources in R&D.

The Feds probably do this only when backed up against a wall. Big wars might do that. So with the Klingon cold war, the Feds were stuck with the Constitutions (and possibly corresponding lighter but unseen designs like Saladins) and built plenty of those because they worked. When there was no war, the Feds built multiple ship classes, low in numbers but each more advanced than the predecessor. And when wars again threatened in the 24th century (perhaps because of UFP expansion and "thinning out" of the fleet), Starfleet again had to mass-produce the designs that worked adequately at the time (the heavy Excelsior and light Miranda and later perhaps the plentiful Steamrunner and Saber). Starfleet seriously disliked doing so, though, and went for more diverse designs as soon as it could afford to do so.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

The Hathaway was launched about the time of the events in ST II/III/IV. We have the Repulse at NCC-2544 fighting in the Dominion War. Take these factoids as fodder for discussion.

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I don't think the Vor'Cha or the Negh'Var were cheap to develop...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

Just BTW:
The Reliant's aft torpedo missed by a mile - it went well underneath the Enterprise.

------------------
At that point, McDonald fired his gun three times in the air to emphasize his point. The crowd, estimated at 350,000, loudly cheered the new candidate.

"Let me make this clear: I am the law! I am your ruler! And you will have fries with that, motherf*cker!"

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Erm, weren't we watching the tropedo on the Enterprise's viewscreen? How do you know it missed?

"I don't think that Starfleet would have retired the Enterprise as the Flagship after 15 years with no good reason."

Argh! Stupid Admiral Morrow! Damn his stupidness.

The Enterprise wasn't 15 years old. It was 35. 5 year's with April, 11 years with Pike, 5 year's with Kirk, 2 years refit, possible other 5 years with Kirk, THEN it became a training vessel.

And who said it was the flagship? I don't recall the original Enterprise ever being referred to as such. Or the A for that matter. I can see the Excelsior being the flagship.

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

Come on now! Any ship named Enterprise in Star Trek IS the flagship no matter how old she is. I meant 15 years from her refiting. If the E-nil was totally gutted out refitte and such then her operational lifetime would have been lengthened a bit. So even though the name Enterprise NCC-1701 is 35.5 years old in reality eith the refit she's really only 15 years old.

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Why would Kirk's ship be the flagship? GR said he wanted Kirk's ship to be "just another in a fleet": in other words, nothing special.

The only Enterprise that we know to be the flagship is the -D.

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

I really haven't finished reading this post, so if you want you can yell at me, but I figure I would give my two cents on persistence of classes over long periods of time. In the fictional universe of trek I like to think of ships in the sense of sailing vessels rather than battleship. Crossing oceans in the twentieth century has become so routine that we no longer consider the adventure it must have been two or three hundred years ago. While the marine clock is to thank for much the normalization of oceanic travel, the perception of distance in trek seem closer to that of early sailing vessels. I guess what I am trying to say is that space is like a ocean that can never be entirely mapped, so the persistence of a few class that have proven exceptional over a period of a few hundred years is anything but difficult to believe. This also fall hand in hand with my belief that trek ships are designed for performance and efficiency rather than combat, and that the designation of such vessels is based on their range not combat readiness.

Lol

Runs for cover��.

------------------
Access Password
47at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/9268/index.html

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

About the aft torp fired by the Reliant: There are actually two such torps, which might create confusion. Khan fires one at the Enterprise in the nebula, after Sulu fumbles with the phaser trigger and fires past Khan. Since sensors don't work, the torp is a clean miss.

But Khan also fires another in the first battle, as his final coup de grace shot before presenting Kirk with his ultimatum. This torp ALSO seems to be a clear miss, going below the Enterprise on the viewscreen image - but apparently it hits the ship nevertheless, since the Enterprise is rocked by the hit. Perhaps Khan only fired it as a warning shot, a proximity detonation to drive home the point that "You are shieldless and if I aim the next torp *directly* at you, you will all die, so don't get any ideas". That would explain why this torp left no visible damage to the Enterprise - it detonated at a safe distance.

This first torpedo shot might imply the torps were precision-guided, to explain why the apparent miss-trajectory still produced the effect Khan wanted - but if Khan actually wanted a miss, then precision guidance need not be implied. The shot is interesting in another respect as well: Kirk apparently thinks Sulu could shoot down the torp with phasers, although Sulu then says it's too late. It seems possible to me that at this point Kirk knew that if the torp really hit, the Enterprise would be completely vaporized, so he was ready to try desperation measures - but Khan just chose to frighten, not destroy.

Timo Saloniemi

P.S. My vote goes for the E-nil NOT being a Federation flagship at any point of her career, even though she is the only one of the Enterprises with a flag officer in command...

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I have never heard of phasers intercepting torpedoes, although maybe they should've a long time ago. But we really don't know from what point of the ship the main viewer is transmitting, so the torpedo could've hit the bottom or sides of the ship.
Or maybe just the underside of the saucer, if the sensor holding the video feed is placed at the front tip of the saucer.
If I was an FX-producer, I wouldn't trust the audience to grasp the intricate ways of Trek warfare, since many aren't interested in tech and tactics... I'd keep it simple.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Did the Enterprise-Nil ever have a flag officer in command? I thought Kirk was, essentially, demoted to Captain in TMP. Everyone referred to him as such once the ship was underway, and he wore Captain's stripes.

And Spock was properly in command in TWOK. He only let Kirk take over because he's nice, but tecnically, the ship was still Spock's. And in TSFS, Kirk was essentially babysitting the crippled ship while it limped home.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

I was thinking of ST2 and ST3 when I said the ship had a flag officer in command. But admittedly that wasn't very formal or permanent command - if I included it, I'd probably also have to include Pressman in command of the E-D in "The Pegasus", too.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Anyone remember "Errand of Mercy"? It probably wasn't the case, but it sure seemed like the Enterprise was in charge of the fleet there... And Lt. Sulu was in command.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

If Kahn did hit the E-nil then that damage wouldhave been siginificant. Remember ST6? Chang's torpedo blew a hole through the E-A's saucer.

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

And what a P.O.S torpie that was! Not blowing up, I mean...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Let's also keep in mind that Khan knew precicely where to fire his shots to disable the E-nil. He wasn't being nice...he was being ruthless.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Of course, the first torpedo shot by Khan was a special effects/technical disaster. As was stated, a torpedo shot at the unshielded hull of the Enterprise whould have done serious damamge which was never seen. As a matter of fact, I don't think they ever showed *any* damage from that shot, (except for all those sparks on the bridge). So Timo could be correct with the idea of a proximity blast.

(It should be kept in mind however, that torpedoes were in a relatively low state of technological advancement. According to TNG:TM, they were little more than seperate sections of matter and antimatter thrust together on impact, much like a fission warhead. No big technical components to "increase isoton yield per gram" or whatever. Still though, even a couple of grams would have wreaked havoc. Someone already referenced to ST-IV.)

IMO, the reason Kirk thought Sulu could shoot down the incoming photorp was that it was traveling relatively slowly, (i.e., well below light speed), and could be targeted. Apparently not slowly enough though. (and it was Spock that said "too late," not Sulu.)

Also, could someone please explain how that nasty black spot got on the portside-aft underside of the primary hull? I remember seeing it in the shot with the Reliant and Enterprise facing off after Khan had made his attack, camera behind the Enterprise.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Honestly, I always thought that was the torpedo impact!

Of course, perhaps the explosion of the torpedo in space caused it -- burned the hull? I dunno, that's my best thought. Otherwise, I'd say Reliant scored the shot while the movie is showing the Enterprise bridge ...

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.64 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with six eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Well it's not like we've seen torpedo impacts while the camera shows the bridge, nooo...

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I always assumed that the impact of the torpedo had ample enough energy to blow stuff up all over the ship. Including all those consoles on the bridge. Face it, with all that energy coming from the blast it's gonna go somewhere, including up to the bridge.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Tech Sergeant Chen (Member # 350) on :

quote:

* Enterprise is being replaced in 2013 by CVNX-1 (CVN-78), the first of a new class of supercarrier *

There's some disagreement as to whether this will be a CV or a CVN. They're planning electromagnetic catapults, so it won't require big reactors to generate steam. In terms of construction and operational costs, gas turbine propulsion is a lot cheaper, important for the new, smaller Navy.

------------------
Never give up. Never surrender.

[This message has been edited by Tech Sergeant Chen (edited March 18, 2001).]

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Quatre Winner, energy from a weapons blast is completely uncontrolled. I don't think that the sparks flying from consoles and power distributors come directly from the energy of the blast per se, but more from systems overloads caused by the blast, (i.e., shield power flushing back through the system), which is why some of those overloads are impossible. Why would the science station explode if shields were down and it was only the hull taking damage?

For example, (not that I know much about this, but), if an explosive hit the deck of an aircraft carrier, would the helm console on the bridge overload?

Anyway, that's what I think.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Hell if I know, Daniel. That's why I ask you guys the really tough questions.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Tech Sergeant Chen, I just read your post. Where did this come from? GAS turbines? As in no nuclear reactors? Is that why they're confused over the CV versus CVN? Electromagnetic catapults? New class of supercarrier as in *not* Nimitz-class? Get me your source! I wanna read about this! I'm stuck back in my Jane's 1975-76 edition.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

I'd think that at this point, the carrier is still more of a wishful dream. The British want to have a new conventional carrier, too, possibly with electromagnetic but more probably with steam catapults (I trust they want to purchase the VTOL version of the JSF, and ski-jumps don't work quite as well with that as they do with Harrier - and catapults would allow for the CTOL version, too). But changing political climates may see a lesser need for the USN to project air power, and a greater need for European navies to do so. Building a new carrier for the USN doesn't seem very acute now that there are so many CVNs to choose from, and most of those aren't geriatric yet.

And we know carriers will be outdated by WWIII in the 2050s anyway, so whatever they come up with next will be the last example of that ship type...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

Carriers will ber as useless in 10-20 years as battleships are today. In my opinion there should be no more carriers anymore. Just stop building them and leave the others alone. Planes now have the range to reach far off places in thw world. The US (right now) won't do anything with the UN's approval anyway. So if the US has support then the US could use the ally's own airbases to bomb that country.

Perhaps the phton was of low yield? In TNG's "Redeption II" showed use that the torpedoes explosive yeild could be lowered. So maybe Kahn lowered the yield so he let Kirk "who it was who beated you" as Kahn has said.

------------------
Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!

-All you base belong to infinity. -infinity11