posted
Well, in the multicultural Trek universe, *somebody* will always be at the tech level against which Mirandas reign supreme... Why waste a Galaxy class vessel against those weanies?
If R&D costs are a major part of shipbuilding, then it makes sense to keep producing ships in bulk to centuries-old blueprints. All you really have to change is the upholstery. Your communicators already can interface with alien comm systems they have never even heard of before, so there's no need to upgrade your datalinks in any way - a Miranda can speak with an Intrepid just fine. Your fuel is pure deuterium/antideuterium and apparently has been since ancient times, so no compatibility problems there. And spares can be replicated, so you needn't worry about them going out of production.
Starships simply are the ultimate in both forward and backward compatibility.
posted
On the basic term. Basically the way I see it is that the only serious non-reality behind the scenes reason for any of the ships to look different from one another as well as being somewhat streamlined, is the warp factor stresses involved. Lets' face it, today's physics predict that at near and at the speed of light, we become pure energy. Most of these ships are traveling thousand times that, so there must be some stress involved. What I am getting at, is that as the ships get faster, the ships probably have to be designed accordingly. Also if you can refit a ship to go from top warp speed from Warp 7 to Warp 9, then obviously some stuff on the ship will need to be changed to handle those speeds. Same goes for weapons and shields.
Besides, unless the aliens you are talking of are stupid or just plain new to the intergalactic scene, I dobut anyone with a technology level around the equivilant would want to pick a fight with the Federation.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
I mean if Starfleet can use nearly 70 year old designs (imgaine us using 70 year old designs in our future or refitting of our modern ships/aircraft)
Yes. Imagine that. Good thing the B-52 is never used anymore, eh?
-------------------- 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
The funny thing about the B-52 is that her main role still is one of carpet-bombing, the thing she was built for. (With a side order of one-way missions of dropping free-fall nukes, but she wasn't all that good in that one. And standoff missile-firing and anti-ship mining came and went - today, the submarines are tasked with that again.)
There are all sorts of success stories in veteran aviation, but they usually involve a major change in role halfway through the career. I just can't *believe* the things they keep flying for firefighting, for example.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Even so, a B-52 is identical to earlier variants in external appearance only. Under the hood, it's a whole new bird.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the B-52 is scheduled to be around for another 20 years (or at least another 10)..
And externally it looks the same, but internally it's different? So, again, it's obviously not something that can be compared to the Miranda and Excelsior classes is it? No. Not at all.
-------------------- 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
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Your feeble attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding, that was the same analogy I tried to use.
And if you say anything smart, I'll slap you silly.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- 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
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: Even so, a B-52 is identical to earlier variants in external appearance only. Under the hood, it's a whole new bird.
Exactly! The TNG:TM goes into a little bit of detail regarding potential refit/upgrade cycles towards the end of the book. Components are constantly replaced as they wear out, and when new, better technology -- like a nondestructive warp core -- come out, they add those in.
I'd bet that such things would be true with the Miranda and Excelsior classes, among others. Perhaps not all spaceframe designs are capable of lasting so long, but if Starfleet finds a design that works, then they would keep using it for several decades at least.
Also remember that almost all of the Mirandas and Excelsiors seen in TNG and DS9 were not 70+ years old. They had NCC-3xxxx and NCC-4xxxx numbers, which implies an approximate commission/launch date of 2330 or so. (That's a VERY vague estimate, of course.)
Liam mentioned the B-52 bomber, and that's a great example. Consider also the carrier USS Enterprise, which was launched in 1961 and probably will stay in service for at least another 15 or 20 years at least. The Nimitz-class nuclear carriers were first launched in 1975, and they're still building them today... albeit with some minor changes to the design, I'll bet. (The Navy Fact File on carriers says that some of the Nimitz-class carriers carry different armament. I'd bet that there are other variations as well.)
-------------------- “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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
id be willing to bet there are some newer Miranda and Excelsior variants we havent seen with 24th century improvements like different nacelles, and maybe lifepod hatches. it wouldve been very efective in explaining this if theyd added features like that to the DW era Miranda model, since it was CGI and doing so wouldve been simple, and able to be undone should they need the model in its original state. oh well.
and if the second wave Mirandasand Excelsiors were built in the mid-to-early 24th, then they would definitely be built to the same design but with a stronger spaceframe based on current building methods. basically ,as long as the ships understructure were upgraded, i see no reason why the ships should have any trouble using modern power systems and reaching accelerations like newer designs, considering the very bones of the ship could be several times more powerful than when the original ships of the class were built.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There's a picture at Ex Astris Scientia that shows Doug "NX designer" Drexler's opinions on the matter
-------------------- 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
Also, for what it's worth, the new Miranda and Excelsior's are different in one fairly important way; their engines glow blue all the time, rather than only glowing when the ships are at warp. Since newer craft also have permentantly glowing engines, a connection seems obvious.
-------------------- 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
That and some of the new Mirandas, if not all, have had the aft torp launchers replaced with additional impulse engines and the aft launchers possibly relocated.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
