posted
I have the Excelsior on 2285 I have the Ambassador on 2302 the Enterprise C on 2310 along with the B being Decomm. with the C destroyed in 2344 before she could be Decomm. 2357 for the Galaxy Soverighn on 2370 with the E on 2372
So the Galaxy was not aroung long either before the Soverighn Came out.
Just my 2cents
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Capped In Mic: i also think the Ambassadors tech is most likely post-2320.
And why would they build the 24th century's first large explorer class before the Excelsior had even been proven?
BTW, there are a few other 10xxx Ambassadors.. the Horatio i believe.
The registry is from the show and the name, too. But we never saw the Horatio. Maybe there has been some sort of refit after the first batch of ships was completed. The real problem is the fact that the Enterprise-C's more modern design became the Ambassador-class afterwards.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
"the Enterprise C on 2310 along with the B being Decomm...."
Isn't it bad enough that the A was decommissioned so quickly? Why would the B have been decommissioned after only 17 years?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We could just as easily say that the C was on her shakedown cruise when the Romulans attacked Narendra III. There were lots of cadets aboard, after all. (Assuming that the cadet uniform was still being worn by cadets at the time, and didn't signify noncoms, or something.) The only two Enterprise C crewmembers with lines don't provide any context for their mission, so we could place it almost anywhere along the ship's life-cycle we wanted.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:The registry is from the show and the name, too.
The name "Horatio" was of course mentioned, but I don't believe it's registry was ever mentioned. Do you mean the class?
quote:The real problem is the fact that the Enterprise-C's more modern design became the Ambassador-class afterwards.
Not quite. The Ent-C model was always supposed to represent the Ambassador class, from EAF with Porbert's painting, all the way to YE, with panels on the Ent-C stating the class of the ship. I realize that in YE, no one ever actually called the Ent-C an "Ambassador class" ship, AFAIK. But it was supposed to be one all the time.
What I'm trying to figure out is the Ambassador/Excelsior conundrum. In the Encyclopedia, Okuda stated that the design for the Ambassador class was supposed to be a middle ground between the Excelsior and the Galaxy classes. This implies that the Excelsior was no longer in production, because the Ambassador was the (pardon the pun) next generation of Starfleet technology, just as the Galaxy would be the next step after the Ambassador. However, registry-wise, this is not the case. Here's a theory as to what might have happened:
Somewhere between the years 2310 to 2320, production of the Ambassador class was started, and then abruptly halted, while production of the Excelsior class continued & exceeded the Ambassador well into the 2330's. This doesn't make sense to me, unless the Ambassador class had a serious design flaw which stopped production much sooner than anticipated, with the only other option being the continuation of Excelsior production in the meantime, with registries up to the 40000's. By the 2340's, newer types of ships like the Springfield, Niagara, Olympic, & Challenger classes came into production with 50000 registries, while Excelsiors finally became obsolete. By the 2350's, even more advanced ships such as the Nebula, Saber, Akira, & Norway classes emerged, and finally in the 2360's, the Galaxy class.
And the reason why we always see so many Excelsiors, as opposed to the other, newer classes, was because so many Excelsiors were produced in the 50 years spanning 2285 to 2335, the need for more ships wasn't as great. That, or the newer ships fell victim to such things as the Cardassian wars, or again to more mundane things like design flaws.
Any thoughts?
-------------------- "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
posted
The Excelsior was 2280's--- but it was built long before this. There was probably a good amount of drawing board progress at the end of the 2260's.
The Enterprise-B was shown to be launched in 2290's, the early part at that. So it was being built during the time of ST:5 and ST:6--- whether or not it was named E-B at that time, we don't know... but it was around.
The Ambassador NX has a registry of 10521--- The Enterprise-C has nothing to do with when the Ambassador NX was launched--- as was said for all we know the E-C was on her maiden voyage when she was destroyed in 2344. There is absolutely no reason to have the Ambassador launched before 2310--- this gives Starfleet fifty years with the Excelsior [about the time between the Constitution and Excelsior] and less than twenty years with the Refit Excel [which seems to have been a defunct design because they didn't make many of them]. Project start can definately be before 2310, but should be after 2300--- this gives enough time for the Refit Excel to prove worthless and enough time for the Ambassador to be ready before 2320. --- I've personally put the Launch of the NX Ambassador in 2318, obviously construction and design occured anywhere between 10 and 15 years prior.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
PS: The reason we haven't seen any Ambassador Class vessels is because the model was dropped--- personally within canon I'd like to say that we haven't seen any because they were never where our heros were at. You ask why didn't we see them during the Dominion War but we saw the Excelsiors. Personally I think that is because the Excelsior Class vessels were cannon fodder, and the Ambassador was capable of holding it's own against other threats within and along other edges of the Federation.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
I generalize that you never saw any Ambies simply because they were Explorers - and thus, during TNG and DS9 they were out exploring stuff. Galaxies, being more rounded ships, were somewhat more common closer to home. In any case, most people seem to think that they were simply outdated by the TNG era anyway, and there simply weren't many left.
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
stardates dont even go in order.. dont try to figure them out. itll give you a headache.
BTW, the Horatio's registry is by Okuda, from the Encyclopedia, and its class is from the episode. The only canonical (onscreen) Ambassador registries are 1701-C, 2xxxx for the Yamaguchi and 62136 for the Zuhkov , so unless we go by Okuda's others, we really dont have a hell of a lot to work with. Accepting Okuda's background registries (some from the shiplist, i believe), there was a 10xxx series of Ambassadors and a 2xxxx series. (i might even believe a theoretical late build Ambie could have a 6xxxx registry, but that incites violence here, so im going to leave those two series).
and its true, we have no date reference for any Ambassador commissioning, especially since we dont even have a registry reference for the Enteprise: 1701-C doesnt tell us which series it came from, and it could have been 1 year old or 31 years old when destroyed, we just dont know.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That�s just my best shot into trying to make it out of the best we have. Stardate are close in TNG so I use those to reference and started counting back. st6 and generations make it seem the Stardate correct themselves, so I counted from there to were it meets with the TNG ones and started Putting the ships in by Stardate, and seems to me like it came out pretty well by using the Tsiolkovsky Stardate and the Brattain launch date and the 1701-D's launch date with the and dividing them up and that�s what I came out with. For the Brattain and the Excelsior I use them to reference the one for the ambassador
[ September 13, 2002, 00:41: Message edited by: Akira62497 ]
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
has anyone pointed out to you that stardates dont even go in order sometimes?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I doubt the Excelsiors became "obsolete" even with the introduction of the "Galaxy generation". That generation had nothing to offer for replacement - unless we retcon a large number of Akiras into existence in the pre-TNG years, since this class has been the only modern class with a chance to numerically rival the Excelsiors in DS9.
Furthermore, I don't see the Ambassadors as successors to the Excelsiors at all. They are more probably a parallel design, simply a bigger one - much like the Galaxy is a parallel design to the New Orleans.
The Ambassadors have several Excelsior-like features that IMHO fully justify considering them "Excelsior generation" vessels: the saucer rim, the gradual emergence of more portholes, the nacelle design with a dorsal opening... Thus, I see no problem at all with the E-C replacing the E-B at an early date. Or a late date, for that matter. Anything between 2300 and 2340 goes for me, but I personally favor the early alternatives. If 23rd century Starfleet can build things as big as the Spacedock, surely we can credit it with the capacity to build an Ambassador!
(Note that Kirk's Constitutions or Sulu's Excelsior were never explicitly referred to as the biggest fish in the pond, some banter in ST6 notwithstanding... Starfleet could have had far bigger ships in TOS already.)
The E-B design did NOT become obsolete when the E-B was replaced. Starfleet simply "laterally" moved the name Enterprise from the top-of-the-line heavy cruiser of the day (Excelsior) to the top-of-the-line explorer/evenheaviercruiser/whatnot of the day (Ambassador). Note that in the 2370s, it will in fact "demote" the name from the large Galaxy class to the smaller Sovereign class, again without any indication that the Galaxies would become obsolete. To the contrary, they feature prominently in DS9, and even in the alternate futures of TNG and VOY.
As for cadets aboard the E-C, I saw none, really. The jumpsuit uniforms are indeed supposed to denote noncoms, as long as the undershirt collar is black instead of red. A red undershirt collar would denote cadets. Or, more probably, a red collar under a jumpsuit means noncom trainee, while a red collar under an officer uniform plus a red-plus-department-color shoulder/sleeve pad (as with Saavik and the blonde guy) means cadet.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The name "Horatio" was of course mentioned, but I don't believe it's registry was ever mentioned. Do you mean the class?
No, I just thought the NCC was on the screen when Captain Keel contacted Picard. And I'm sure Data said something about an "Ambassador-class cruiser and two frigates orbiting the planet".
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:and less than twenty years with the Refit Excel [which seems to have been a defunct design because they didn't make many of them]. Project start can definately be before 2310, but should be after 2300--- this gives enough time for the Refit Excel to prove worthless and enough time for the Ambassador to be ready before 2320.
There's only one problem with that theory. Instead of the Enterprise-B's "NCC-1701-B" registry, let's give it something more chronologically consistent to the 2290's, say, NCC-2050 (which is probably the rego it would have if it were not named "Enterprise"). If there was a design flaw or recall, they most likely would have caught it not long after. However, you have the Lakota NCC-42768, a ship from the 2330's registry-wise, with the same design. That throws your theory out the window.
Again, this type of thing just reinforces my complaint about TPTB giving movie-ere ships such high registries.
-------------------- "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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, so unless we go by Okuda's others, we really dont have a hell of a lot to work with. Accepting Okuda's background registries (some from the shiplist, i believe), there was a 10xxx series of Ambassadors and a 2xxxx series. (i might even believe a theoretical late build Ambie could have a 6xxxx registry, but that incites violence here, so im going to leave those two series).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
