posted
I've just read this and was wondering; if Starfleet can make such massive changes to a ship and still give it the same registry, how do we know what those ships with the 'odd' registaries looked like? This particularly applies to the NCC-1017, this could be a previous design that has been completely modified to almost Constitution standards and appearence (there were some differences) and been allowed to keep it's number.
Edit: Corrected spelling
[ April 23, 2002, 11:24: Message edited by: Wraith ]
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Before everyone jumps down your throat, Wraith, I'll gently point out that this is in some places the prevailing fandom view.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Such a refit is a possibility, but there is a simpler explanation. How different are Soyuz and Miranda classes? Not too different externally. Or B'Rel and K'Vort classes? Identical.
Not to mention that this explains why the 1701 Enterprise is Enterprise-class (according to Star Trek II) while 1701-A is Constitution class. The Enterprise was the first ship of the new type, and must bear the original name. The Constitution was refitted some time after this, they realized its specs were better, and turned the rest of the original ships into the Constitution class.
[ April 12, 2002, 13:45: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with Boris, first it was the Enterprise then later when the Constitution herself was refitted, then it was back to the Constitution class. On the other hand, the Enterprise class could be just another sub-class to the Constitution class similarly to the Achenar is to the Constitution class. Or the Soyuz is to the Miranda class.
On the other hand, I do believe at that time Starfleet did rebuild its ships to the latest design to keep up being a modernized fleet. To me unless someone has a real good explanation, The Enterprise and her sisters shouldn't be the only ships in the fleet to recieve any type of refit like that.
I think the 24th century does it to an extent such as replacing things that can be swappable or replaced such as nacelles or bridges or warp cores. Then you got the basic systems refit, replacing the older ones with the newest in an attempt to keep up with modern technology. That is why we still see 100+ year old ships and designs in Star Trek.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I completely agree with you Matrix (and Boris) simply because i'm not really a puritan as far as canonity [is that a word?] goes. I enjoy imagining that ships from Ships of the Starfleet were indeed real starfleet classes/ships. ALtho there are a few contradictions - the one i can remember of the top of my head were the Reliant and Saratoga (from ST:IV presumably)being listed as something other than Miranda class [i cant remember what they were listed as , altho IIRC its Avenger class.
Buzz
-------------------- "Tom is Canadian. He thereby uses advanced humour tecniques, such as 'irony', 'sarcasm', and werid shit'. If you are not qualified in any of these, it will be risky for you to attempt to decipher what he means. Just smile and carry on." - PsyLiam; 16th June
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I completely agree with Veers
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
CaptAlabin
Ex-Member
posted
Boris, I agree with you as well. The real world example would be the USN's Spurance Class Destroyers and Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers. They were both built on the same hulls and the Ticonderoga's were first classified as missile destroyers. The internal and superstructures of both classes are different. This can apply to the Soyuz and Miranda Classes. Another example would be the Nimitz I and Nimitz II (Theodore Roosevelt Class) Classes. These two carrier class can be classified as one class or two. The earlier Nimitzs from Nimitz to the Vinson and the later ones starting with the Roosevelt are different internally.
IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
The more you build of something, the more you want to tinker with it. Every modeler knows that.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
^ Quite right; actually I doubt that any two Starfleet vessels are exactly the same. Changes introduced in the construction phase, minor updates and modifications made by serving crews would all account for differences between many ships that have the same class. The reason I specifically mentioned NCC-1017 was that according to TOS registry system this was a ship of a type seven before the Connies and I would surmise that it would therefore have had a significantly different original appearance.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I remain firm in my belief that individual ships do not change class, no matter how drastically they are refitted.
The NCC-1701 and her sister ships were never anything but Consitution-class vessels. That was either an Enterprise-class simulator in TWOK, or it was simply the simulator being used by the class of trainees assigned to the Enterprise. It was not a simulator for an Enterprise-class ship, since there is no such thing as an Enterprise-class ship...
-MMoM
[ April 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Aircraft use a block system.... The first block may have 300 aircraft..... The second may have 500, but changed in some way The third may have 120 etc.... All are the same type, different letter suffix though... Like the F-15A through F-15E
On the Carriers... The Roosevelt has a different internal layout... The Vinson has a different external layout, with the additional 2 Phalanx systems, so the could be considered a sub-class or different class also... Nimitz (2 Units) Vinson (1 Unit) Roosevelt (6 Units) I would believe that the basic hull/chassis would be the class determination.
Only when changed drastically should the class be changed, or a sub-class added, such as the U.S. Navy AGFs, or Command Ships. These started out life as different classes, but had major changes in everything, sixe, weight, mission, etc.... and became a class of their own....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Methinks that the answer lies between Boris and Ritten. I would think that a vessel's class would change very rarely (if ever) - and only because of a fairly drastic change. A refit (which is what happened to the Enterprise prior to TMP should not qualify as a change of class.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The way I see it is that the E-nil stayed Constitution-class because the overall configuration stayed the same. The same could be said about the Klingon battle cruiser - that is, they are all D7-class whether or not they are K'tinga or TOS style.
A ship like the USS Constellation NCC-1017 though, might have started life in a vastly different configuration. As an example, the ship might have originally been like that Loknar-class, but was later refit to Constitution spec. Now, that would've involved adding an entire secondary hull and neck - an entirely new configuration.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dax: A ship like the USS Constellation NCC-1017 though, might have started life in a vastly different configuration. As an example, the ship might have originally been like that Loknar-class, but was later refit to Constitution spec. Now, that would've involved adding an entire secondary hull and neck - an entirely new configuration.
Yeah, but that's a major change in loadbearing structures & the like. This isn't a battleship work-stopped on the ways & converted into an aircraft carrier halfway through the hull here. You're talking about the equivalent of taking a Liberty ship & building a supertanker out of it.
No matter how much I fiddle with the frame, my Saturn SL1 will never be a Lotus Esprit. No, some things are just cost-prohibitive. I mean, what if all of a sudden a Nebula was turned into a Galaxy or vice-versa? Doesn't that seem mildly absurd?
It's not simply a matter of popping off parts & replacing them with new ones like building a model. There's a lot of work that would need to be done to accomplish somethign like that. I happened to visit Electric Boat's yards in Groton while they were converting some of the old George Washington-class SSBNs into SEALS delivery boats. Part of the works was modifiying some of the old missile tubes into personnel & equipment delivery silos. A seemingly simple task, yes, but one that request extensive rebuilds to the point of sectioning the hull & completely rewitring & restructuring the old missile compartment.
No, while the idea of "lower number" ships being refitted into a "higher" class sounds good on paper, even the slightest analysis tells us it's ineffective in actuality.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
