posted
I'm assuming it was written in mid-late '97 and 8 years before that would be mid-late '91....TNG Season 5. At least the stuff written was expected to be seen in '97-'98 so eight years prior is the time of Bozeman's return.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
Shipbuilder: How did you do in math at school? The book is published in 1998. 1998-9=1989. The book is set in the year 2374. 2374-9=2265. Three years before the USS Bozeman appeared. The quoted portions do not mention the ships being active. "Unification, Part 1" established that ships are salvaged for parts. Could there be a dockyard of old Soyuz Class ships? There are two ways to read the "nearing the vessels' primary operational lifetimes": 1. the ships were retired early in 2288 (what is a primary operational lifetime for a Miranda Class starship? About 50 years-there are Miranda Class starships in the Qualor II surplus depot. This places the construction of the first Soyuz in 2238-making the class older than the Miranda Class.) 2. the ships were operational in 2365. Not supported by canon evidence. 1 is the best choice. I live near the moth ball fleet. They have ships that date to at least 50 years and more. These ships are on reserve duty-meaning some can still work. Imagine-there is a dockyard of Soyuz Class starships. The subspace transceivers and weapons equipment still work. These parts are removed from ships that could still be active and placed in storage. DS9 needs weapons. Why build new weapons when a storage yard has a surplus of old but active weapon systems? These are used. Any opinions?
IP: Logged
posted
The only problem with taking parts from decommissioned ships is the weapons.
The station's phasers kick ass, to use a technical term. Hardly what you would expect from 80 year old systems.
Personally, I'm still leaning towards individual Soyuz(es?) being kept on as testbed vessels long after the class was retired. It seems at least moderately reasonable that an advanced phaser system was tested on a few of them at some point in the past.
------------------ "I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
I did fine in math thanks (4.0 in Mechanical Engr. grad school at the moment). But your right I was thinking TV season times and stretching them...end of 98 - 8 years puts it in 90. Sorry I guess I looked at TNG Season 5 dates wrong. So apparently, according to the DS9TM some Soyuz ships were still around.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
The parts from a ship that has been retired can be modified, even upgraded. This is how you can see Douglass DC-3s and other old planes in operation. Starfleet took the weapon structure, modified the weapon structure to 2373 standards, and applied them to the DS9 station. This doesn't prove the existence of operating Soyuz Class starships. Let's look at the Qualar II surplus depot. There were modern starships intact, severly damaged starships, and ancient starships. The procedure is to strip the ships of useable parts, transport them to a waiting starship which then ferries the parts to a storage yard. The starship is a starship that is no longer in active, but in reserve duty operated by a civilian crew. (This disproves what the Encyclopedias say about the USS Tripoli. A decomissioned ship would not have warp capabilty. The USS Tripoli, which comes at a set time, would pick up the parts and then ferry the parts to an assigned location. If you don't believe me, watch the episode again.) The parts are then stored and modified when used. Isn't this the argument for those kit bashed ships? Are you going to tell me there are operating Constitution Class starships in the 2360's and the 2370's? The reason for the oddity is that some of the parts of the ships were already scrapped-necks, saucers, etc. And from I understand of these ships-they are flying weapons platforms designed for short operating lifetimes. I have heard in history of militaries doing similar kinds of activities. A military gets caught short-handed, so they improvise. Let's see-I have useable parts from decommissioned ships and ships lost in action. Let's combine the parts and create a ship that has a limited mission. Quick, effective, and ready to use. I am afraid in that mass of jungled matter that is a kit-bashed ship may be the USS Enterprise or the USS Kongo.
IP: Logged
posted
Are you saying they rebuilt old Soyuz phasers into new systems for DS9? I guess I can see that...but it seems to me it would be easier just to build new phasers in the first place, if that's indeed what they did.
But why would you upgrade equipment on a decommissioned ship?
Regarding the Tripoli, I have to say I'm not sure what you're talking about. The ship was stolen by the Romulans. Neither the encylopedia nor the episodes says how, exactly. Why, exactly, wouldn't a decommissioned ship have warp capability? If all the parts were there, all the Romulans would have to do would be to smuggle in an antimatter pod or two. Or they could have just towed it away. No one knows how big the Hokule'a class is.
------------------ "I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
"The Starfleet subspace transceivers are all taken from Soyuz-class starships nearing the end of the vessels' primary operational lifetimes."
Either the DS9TM is wrong or the Enterprise-D crew. The statement in "Cause and Effect" is more prominent, and the DS9TM has proven wrong several times.
Trinculo: I have complained about the allegedly kitbashed ships in several threads. Combining components from different ship classes is easy, just weld them together. The problem is there are countless computer, power, turbolift and Jefferies tubes connections that have to be matched. Even if only the most essential of them are taken into account, there is a lot of engineering to do and it can't be done "hastily" as described in the DS9TM. Even if they are only weapon platforms, they are not intended to be suicide designs. Such ships need a powerful warp drive, impulse drive, weapons, shields and backup systems, otherwise they would be useless for any kind of combat. This applies likewise if they are only intended for support.
posted
Beyond all the hypothesises, there are very few facts. This thread and others that depend on the DS9TM have become obsessive. I know that some of us are bored. One of two choices-we can be creative or we can become like the writers of Voyager? I elect to become creative. Good bye.
IP: Logged
posted
Excuse me? This thread has become "obsessive"? Not to hammer in a point, but you're at a Trek forum dedicated to discussing fictional technology. I presume you're here by choice.
Whether you choose to accept certain information as applicable is, of course, your choice. However, do not imagine that you speak for anyone but yourself on whether people have become bored with a thread. When interest runs out, the thread ends.
------------------ "I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
Bravo Sol. As for the thread itself, their may have been problems with replicating certain materials used in the phaser systems that required reuse of the Soyuz ship phasers (with modifications). That's not to hard to imagine. Not sure why they would want to use the transceiver systems from a 90 year old ship, if they are anything like today's tech (a big assumption) they get outdated pretty quickly (relative to 90 years). Maybe it was replication problems again???
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Trinculo: I hope you keep reading on, although you've given up this thread. I can't find anything wrong about it. There can't be always convergence of opinions, and there does not necessarily have to be a result at its end. Every thread seems to reach a point where very basics ("What is canon, what is true, what is the square root of 42?") are discussed. Just lean back and enjoy and return if you think it's useful again. I will listen to you.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
Correct me if i am wrong which I am 90% of the time. Rick Sternbach wrote this book. Rick Sternbach actively participates in newsgroups-a computerized forum where questions can be asked. Rick Sternbach has never been asked questions about Soyuz class starships. If all is correct, then the fault lies with the inventor of soyuz hypothesises? I do not like inertia in an issue or in life. the argument of this thread is-we don't understand the soyuz class references in the new technical manuel. to explain, we will create hypothesises which are neither proveable or not proveable. the general consensus is that the fs hypothesis is the most valid given the evidence or lack thereof of evidence. unless new evidence emerges, this issue has become inertia matter and has lost its relevancy. one last point- Mr Okuda ferries starship models to conventions. Has anyone asked him the episode in which the starships were in?
IP: Logged
posted
I've got a feeling that if you asked Sternbach about the Soyuz stuff in the DS9TM he would refer you to Stipes or the other guys that were more heavily involved with the DS9TM writing....at that point you'd be talking to a brick wall, Sternbach is about the only talkative person in the whole group.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
