posted
Owing to a point I brought up about the Hermes Class in Designs, Artwork and Creativity, I stumbled across a point possibly worth discussing.
I stated that I had to slightly alter my Saladin mesh to create the Hermes, because the two are identical except for the Hermes lacks the Saladin's armaments. The point was: why was the Hermes Class given a classification unto itself? Why wasn't it simply a 'Saladin variant'. This is something I've been thinking over.
So I said "Perhaps Starfleet has radically changed its classification system, for it would seem to support the argument that in the 23rd century and before, even slight changes to a ship warranted a new classification, such as the Bonhomme Richard Class, etc"
Perhaps, as Topher suggested this might after all bring forward the evidence required to support the 'Enterprise Class' theory. Although I still have doubts about that.
In the 24th century there are certain ships within the same class which are just called 'variants', but which are the same class. Such the 5 Nebula variants, some quite different -yet they're all Nebula Class.
There'a also two Nova variants, two Ambassador variants, some horrid Intrepid variants, possibly two Springfield variants, two Excelsior variants, two Danubes, and multiple Miranda variants. Yet these are all classified as variants, not individual classes.
But, in the 23rd century it's slightly different...
Soyuz Class gets it's own name. If this had been in the 24th century it might well have been called just another Miranda variant, perhaps even if it was a one-off ship.
The smallest possible change to the Saladin and you have Hermes Class.
The smallest possible change to the Constitution and you have Bonhomme Richard Class (semi-canon).
There are also the DS9 kitbashes to consider, quite different from any class, yet they're called hybrid kitbashes, not individual classes, or 'sub classes'.
This is all perhaps worth thinking about, at least.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
I tend to agree with everything you've stated, with one small exception. The classifications of the DS9 kitbashes in the Tech Manual should be taken out, shat on, & flushed down the toilet. These ships are their own classes, not variants of other classes.
Of course, the DS9 kitbashes were never meant to be taken seriously, so it's a moot point anyway.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
yes.. if the moronic naming rules from DS9 TM were true, then the Nebula would be a 'Galaxy-variant' and the Miranda would be a 'Constitution-variant'.. those describe the design history of the ships, and not their actual capabilities, and therefore, individual class desginations are required
(i dont consider tham rules as much as 'general descriptions' which are easily dismissable)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeh I agree Dukhat, and Mike regarding these naming systems of the DS9 kitbashes. Starfleet must have some kind of formal classification for them, and not simply 'Constitution/Miranda variant,' and 'Ambassador/Excelsior variant', etc.
We just don't know what they are.
I think it would be safe to say they are either mass produced classes (unlikely in the Intrepid variants case), or a one-off 'sub-class'. Such as the 'Medusa Class', or 'Medusa type', and 'Curry type'.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
quote:In the 24th century there are certain ships within the same class which are just called 'variants', but which are the same class. Such the 5 Nebula variants, some quite different -yet they're all Nebula Class.
There'a also two Nova variants, two Ambassador variants, some horrid Intrepid variants, possibly two Springfield variants, two Excelsior variants, two Danubes, and multiple Miranda variants. Yet these are all classified as variants, not individual classes.
I want to be anal here. I disagree on 5 Nebbie variants. I believe in 7. (1. Melbourne from battle wreckage 2. Melbourne as desktop model 3. Number two modified with weapons pod 4. Phoenix 5. Sutherland 6. Farragut 7. Honshu) There are no Intrepid variants at all! There are 4 Excelsior variants (1. Excelsior from ST3 2. Excelsior from ST6 3. Enterprise-B 4. Lakota) I believe in 5 Miranda variants (1. TOS-era variant 2. Reliant 3. Lantree 4. Saratoga 5. Modified number 2 [aft torp launchers replaced with additional impulse engines and possible relocation of aft torp launchers])
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hrm. Good argument, Mark. Except that as current naval systems go, a class applies more to the basic design and hull than the complete specifications. For example, there have been different "variants" of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with slightly altered specs, but they're all considered part of the Nimitz-class. (Look at the weapons specs in particular -- they changed the outfit a bit. What else was changed?) Or alternatively, check out the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and see how things differ there, too.
Now, this may not necessarily explain such radical changes like the TWO Nebula versions but since those are apparently exchangable pods, anyway. And the Mirandas are simpler alterations, anyway -- just the rollbar, which was removed for the modification of the Lantree to a cargo ship, for example.
Also, consider that the Constitution refit was a class-wide program -- therefore, since it was supposed to be a complete upgrade, it's still the Constitution-class.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Was it though? We've only ever seen two, and both of them were the Enterprise. There isn't a single word whispered anywhere about other Constitutions being refit that I am aware of. While I agree that the refit was most logically performed on every Constitution that had survived up to that point, this is not, strictly speaking, canon.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well... I'm loathe to bring it up since I don't like the idea of one being there, but there WAS the ST:III self-destruct model which was seen in the Wolf 359 wreckage scene. There's also the quasi-canon suggestion that the Enterprise-A was previously the Yorktown.
Both of these (admittedly nebulous) suggestions would imply that there were more of the refits done.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, but, if we subscribe to the theory that the Enterprise-A was once the ship known as Yorktown, that would indicate that it too was refitted, just like the original Enterprise NCC 1701 in TMP. So that would mean there were at least two Constitution classes refitted.
(I'm saying here that the Yorktown was refitted as the Yorktown, and was only later, at the last moment renamed Enterprise-A)
Dat. I was referring to the DS9 Intrepid variants - the Yeager and Elkins... And what significant external differences were there between the original Excelsior, and the STVI Excelsior? And wasn't the Lakota simply upgraded weapons-wise?
I know what you're saying MM, but in a way you've confirmed this very argument - that the classification system did change at some point, because it seems that in the 23rd century Starfleet were giving individual class names to variants that only differed slightly from the original class.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
The bridge is also a lot smaller on the NCC-2000. And how was the Lakota different from the Enterprise B, apart from the decals?
I keep hearing about the Constitution varients seen in STIV, but I've never seen them. Anyone got any pics?
quote: believe in 5 Miranda variants (1. TOS-era variant
A what now?
quote: The smallest possible change to the Constitution and you have Bonhomme Richard Class (semi-canon).
Yup. It's as semi-cannon as the Enterprise-A having transwarp engines. In that it's not.
I'll go now.
-------------------- 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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The TOS-era Miranda is conjecture, but I base it on the fact that the earliest known Mirandas had numbers in the 1800s which indicate they could have been around during the TOS era.
The Lakota model was not changed from it's E-B appearance, but given that we saw phasers come from banks which don't appear on the model, I'm guessing those banks were added on to the refit Lakota received, thus another variant on the Excelsior design.
I don't call the Elkins and the Yeager as Intrepid variants solely because they were not design modifications or alterations to the parent class. They are simply separate classes based on using parts from the Intrepid class. I don't call a Nebbie a Galaxy variant nor call a Miranda a Connie variant.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The NX-2000 also had the semicircular module with large bay windows in the alcove between the warp engine mount and the stern cargo bay. The STVI version had a smaller, wedge-shaped module in its place.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dat: The Lakota model was not changed from it's E-B appearance, but given that we saw phasers come from banks which don't appear on the model, I'm guessing those banks were added on to the refit Lakota received, thus another variant on the Excelsior design.
Sorry, not buying this logic. We never saw the Enterprise-B fire it's phasers, so I don't see why you are assuming it didn't have them in the same places as the Lakota. After all, if they were invisible on the Lakota, they could just as easily be invisible on the Enterprise-B.
-------------------- 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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
but since those are apparently exchangable pods, anyway. And the Mirandas are simpler alterations, anyway -- just the rollbar, which was removed for the modification of the Lantree to a cargo ship, for example.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
