posted
OK, the following is mostly conjecture but the way I see it is-
1. The Ambassador-class was never produced in large quantities.
2. The last Ambassador built was launched well before the USS Galaxy was launched.
3. The Galaxy-class is superior to the Ambassadors in every respect (I suppose aesthetics is debatable )
The above tells me that when the Galaxy-class was introduced (in ~2360) there was already very few Ambassadors in service. Of course, Starfleet kept these vessels active - a ship doesn't have to be top of the line to be useful (all the Mirandas are good proof of this) - hence ships like the USS Excalibur. But lets say an Abassador is heavily damaged or due for refit - why bother when you can focus the resources on the completely superior Galaxy-class.
Conclusion: By 2375 all Ambassadors have either been destroyed or decommissioned.
OK, a while back (when I first joined Flare and re-opened this topic) I found these diagrams on a website somewhere. I think that the diagrams pretty much explain themselves.
Anyways, as shown in the first diagram, the last Ambassador's registry was roughly NCC-27000 (NCC-26849 to be exact). The second diagram shows the registry and the date it was built (roughly). From the above registry number, the last Ambassador listed was built about 2340-2343. That's 20 years before the Galaxy and Enterprise-D were built.
quote:Originally posted by Dax: 2. The last Ambassador built was launched well before the USS Galaxy was launched.
So yes Dax, your second point looks like it is spot on.
quote:Originally posted by Dax: 1. The Ambassador-class was never produced in large quantities.
Out of the 10 Ambassadors I know of, 3 have been lost/destroyed by the third/forth season of TNG. The remaining 7 (and others) may very well have been lost/destroyed or decommissioned due to their age and lifespan (whatever that is). This just about covers your first point - few were made. Two for two so far - not bad!
quote:Originally posted by Dax: 3. The Galaxy-class is superior to the Ambassadors in every respect (I suppose aesthetics is debatable )
I can't argue with ya there! Three for three!
So in a nutshell, Dax I cannot find a hole in your idea.
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
You know, I wasn't actually trying to piss anyone off? I just know that there are some out there that are quite defensive when it comes to the Ambassador-class. I once had a guy send me an abusive e-mail just because my website states that they're decommissioned.
posted
Well, there's probably at least one out there. I'd guess the USS Excalibur and the USS Zhukov are still in service (unless destroyed in the war).
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm... Why would Starfleet decomission a class like the Ambassador? They were of impressive size, and arguably the most powerful vessels in the Fleet before the introduction of the Galaxies. My theory is that they were simply under-armed for their size (though certainly enough against the Cardies). They had phaser arrays, but they were incredibly short for a vessel of that size, and their output is therefore limited. Sometimes I wonder if the upgraded Excelsiors don't have more phaser power than the Ambassadors.
Perhaps Starfleet found the vessels uneconomical, and its intend role of exploration and power projection filled by the more capable (though almost certainly more expensive) Galaxies and Nebulas. Some vessels remained to argument their more capable successors.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
quote:Originally posted by JeffKardde: Yes, indeedy it does ... (pissed 'cuz I just accidently deleted my very long post explaining why the Galaxy isn't replacing the Oberth or Excelsiors which have different missions, but nevermind)
Grrr! JeffKardde, are you going to give us your very long explaination or not? I'd really like to hear it now that we've established the number of Ambassadors in service. Can we expect it any time soon please?
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
posted
I can't concur with the thoery that the Ambassadors were produced in small numbers. if you look at the prototype registry of NX 10521, and compare it with the Adelphi which is NCC 26849, there is indeed a gap there of some kind. Not though that the staggered number difference in between has to represent only Ambassadors, but I believe they were produced over several batches for maybe two or three decades. For whatever reason we haven't seen a lot of them. I would surmise though there were far fewer than the highly prolific Excelisor class.
But the Ambassadors were similar in that they were a 'capital' or 'command' ship, and would therefore have had a significant fleet presence during their heyday. And I believe some do remain active to this day.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Just a quick note on JK's first post. I just flicked through the thread, but I don't think anyone else brought it up:
"The United Federation of Planets consists of 150 member worlds, plus colonies, et al. Assuming that each member world has a population of 1 billion, and then further assuming that Starfleet makes up say 1% of the Federation Population (not an unreasonable assumption considering that from all appearances, Starfleet is the equivilant of the entire Federal gov't and runs EVERYTHING), then Starfleet has about 150 billion people in it."
1% of 150 billion is 1.5 billion. BTW, I would have thought there would be more than 1 billion per planet. I know our current population of ~6 billion is more than the ecosystem can realistically cope with in the long term, but I think 2-3 billion would be more realistic, personally.
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
posted
It looks like only two batches of Ambassadors were built. We've got the 10xxx and 26xxx batches. Every Ambassador we've seen fits into those groups, except of course the 1701C, but it's reasonable to assume she was a part of the 10xxx series.
It's also worth noting the coincidence of there being two batches of registries as well as two variants of the class. I speculate that all 10xxx Ambassadors were of the first variety (looking like the Ent-C) and all 26xxx Ambassadors were of the second variety (with the underslung Excelsior shuttlebay etc).
In contrast, the Excelsior class seems to have multiple batches of regos. The last batch appears to be 42xxx.
Now it goes without saying that 42xxx is a lot healthier than 26xxx. To put it simply, it tells me that Starfleet preferred to build Excelsiors long after the last Ambassador was launched. Why this is the case is uncertain. One basic theory I have is that the Ambassadors were never intended as a replacement for the Excelsiors, in the same way that the Sovereign class is not no replace the Galaxy. Instead, the Galaxy class has replaced the Ambassadors and eventually the Sovereign class will replace the Excelsiors.
posted
Wrong about the Ambassadors, Dax. The Excalibur (at NCC-26517) is of the exact same type as the Enterprise-C -- after all, it's footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise". The Zhukov and Yamaguchi are both earlier in the 26xxx batch, but they've got the additional shuttlebay, Bussard masks, alternate deflector dish, transporter emitters, etc...
And for all we know, the E-C was of the latter batch, as well. The Renaissance class ended its production run in 2337 with the Hokkaido -- which would almost certainly have had a registry higher than the next highest known Renaissance, the U.S.S. Hornet at NCC-45231. And the E-C wasn't even lost until 2344.
The Ambassador class is probably about fifty years old by the time of TNG, and construction would have ended approximately forty years before "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Redemption", and "Emissary". Thus, there's some other reason some Ambassadors look one way and some look another -- it ain't production batches...
Plus, I like to muddy things further by including Andy Probert's original painting as an indication of what the class looked like when first introduced c.2320s: http://members.tripod.com/~DesignR/AmbasSHIP.html
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
posted
I'm pretty sure it was in the Art of Star Trek. Although, in that book, the picture didn't look anywhere near that detailed. It was a tiny little picture that they'd blown up.
Either the Art of Star Trek didn't know there was a more detailed picture, or Probert did a better drawing of his own back at a later point.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
)
I am still pissed off free! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
