quote:Isn't it bad enough that the A was decommissioned so quickly? Why would the B have been decommissioned after only 17 years?
There's nothing to say the Ent-C wasn't commissioned with the first batch of Ambassadors at the beginning of the 24th century. Maybe the Ent-B was destroyed after only a few years in service. (Quite possible with Harriman in command..)
Dukhat-
quote: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
True enough, but that never made much sense to me as the two don't resemble each other much. The Ambassador resembles the Constitution more than the Galaxy. I always assumed that there is a 'missing link' design that we haven't seen that links the Ambassador to more modern design themes. I speculated before that the Renaissance Class could be that - 'Renaissance' in essence means 'new', it just feels to me like a capital ship, and it's even mentioned in the Tech Manual.
I don't see a problem with Starfleet building new Excelsiors into the 24th century. As Timo said, they're parallel to the Ambassador, and as they were successful and durable they were built for some time. In the same vein, I would expect Starfleet to be building Galaxies for many years to come.
J -
quote: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.
I agree. And it is from that era which I believe the registry number of NX-2000 was first processed/used for the prototype. I basically think NCC-2*** is a 2260's figure.
IMO 2300-ish is a better time frame for the Ambassador launch. 2300 is the same to the Ambassador as 2260's is to the Excelsior - the original date the project started (and perhaps date for the registry of NX-10521 to be processed).
There's no reason to believe that Starfleet stalled on developing new designs just because the Excelsior was doing so well. The Galaxy is a great ship, but doesn't stop them commissioning bigger and better stuff a few years later with the Sovereign. I see the Ambassador as taking over as the fleet spear-head, but still operating on an equal footing with the Excelsior as Starfleet's best and strongest ships for many years.
Mark Nguyen-
quote:I generalize that you never saw any Ambies simply because they were Explorers
Ambassador Class is a Heavy Cruiser, according to dialogue. Explorer seems to be a designation reserved for only the biggest and best, and I doubt the Ambassador would still qualify for that during the TNG era, being somewhat outclassed by then.
Timo-
quote: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.
For realism's sake that'd be nice. But I think during TOS the Connie really was the biggest and best. Perhaps later, the Dreadnought took over (if you have penchant to consider it canon).
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
quote:True enough, but that never made much sense to me as the two don't resemble each other much. The Ambassador resembles the Constitution more than the Galaxy.
Well, for the sake of this argument, let's make two classifications: The movie-era designs and the TNG era designs. We have:
MOVIE ERA: Constellation Constitution refit Excelsior Miranda Oberth Sydney Soyuz
TNG ERA: Challenger Cheyenne Freedom Galaxy Nebula Niagara New Orleans Springfield Olympic
(I'm purposely omitting any designs that are post-DS9/VOY/First Contact, as they are unnecessary to this argument.)
Some characteristics of movie-era ships: No Bussard collectors, very few windows, non-glowing nacelles, aztec pattern painted on, round saucers, large bridge modules, no visible escape pods, phaser beams.
Some characteristics of TNG-era ships: Red Bussard collectors, lotsa windows on both saucer & secondary hull, glowing nacelles, aztec pattern integrated onto hull plating, elliptical saucers, smaller bridge modules, many visible escape pods, phaser strips.
So where does the Ambassador fit in here? It has characteristics of both eras, but mostly prevalent towards the TNG era, IMHO.
quote:I always assumed that there is a 'missing link' design that we haven't seen that links the Ambassador to more modern design themes. I speculated before that the Renaissance Class could be that - 'Renaissance' in essence means 'new', it just feels to me like a capital ship, and it's even mentioned in the Tech Manual.
That's a possibility, but I always viewed the Renaissance class as being from the Excelsior family (like the Centaur or Curry) because of it's 4XXXX registries, and that the last one was built in the late 2330's - the same decade I speculated that production of the Excelsiors had been stopped.
quote:I generalize that you never saw any Ambies simply because they were Explorers
The four times we saw an Ambassador on screen, none of them were doing any exploring. The Ent-C was answering a distress call from a Klingon outpost, the Yamaguchi was battling the Borg at Wolf 359, the Excalibur was in a tachyon grid, and the Zhukov was transferring crew members to the Enterprise. When I think of ships out exploring, I think of the Olympia, which was gone for years, alone, out of contact with everyone, and farther out that any other ship has gone before.
[ September 13, 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
That's exactly what I mean. We don't know what the E-C was doing before she got timejacked; Yamaguchi, Zhukov and Excalibur could easily have been doing stuff on their way to exploration missions, or in between missions / being refitted. There could be dozens of 'em, and we simply don't see them because they're too far away to be seen on any regular basis. Heck, there could be lots of them that were never involved in the Dominion War because it'd take years for them to get back.
posted
Re: the idea that red ramscoops are a TNG feature... Aren't they more like a TOS one? Especially hemispherical ones, like those on the early Ambassadors?
I doubt even the Federation dreadnoughts were the biggest things afloat during TOS. There could quite well have been something in the Ambassador size ballpark out there, doing deep space stuff well outside camera range.
Since the canted saucer edge of the Ambassadors/Excelsiors is now proven to be an old design feature (NX-01), too, I have no trouble believing that the Jupiter Station stacked saucers could come from a TOS era behemoth-ship production line... Perhaps in the ENT timeframe, the station had just one such saucer, with more added every half-century or so.
"There's nothing to say the Ent-C wasn't commissioned with the first batch of Ambassadors at the beginning of the 24th century. Maybe the Ent-B was destroyed after only a few years in service."
Yes, that's possible. What's your point?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't know... I find the idea of the Excelsior taking twenty years to construct a little hard to swallow. Granted, R&D on the transwarp would have been going on for years, but the actual construction? Consider: with all the changes, internal and external, the "refit" of the TOS Enterprise is closer to constructing a new vessel (I doubt very much more than a few structural members were retained, given the differences). Yet this major reworking was concluded in eighteen months. Constructing the E-D, a far larger and more complex vessel, only took twelve years. So what were the yard crews building the Excelsior doing for all that time? Taking REALLY long coffee breaks?
The comparison with the Galaxy class project raises an interesting point which, I think, is another sticking point against a twenty year construction time for the Excelsior. As I said above, the E-D took twelve years to build, and the Galaxy herself took thirteen years. Extrapolate that into the Excelsior class, and it leaves you with the amusing idea that Starfleet would have begun building the E-B in roughly 2273.
As for assigning the prototype a registry number so long before her commissioning, if you buy into what the DS9TM says about the Defiant's design history (a dangerous proposition, I admit), the pathfinder had neither name nor registry number when the design work began. This makes sense to me; why assign a registry to a project unless you're sure you're going to build it?
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
but planning the Galaxy took over 20 years.. the project was officially approved in 2343, according to the TNG TM.
Why this push to make the Ambassador so early. I still think anything earlier than 2315-2320 just doesnt 'feel' right.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think part of it has to do with trying to make NCCs fit. Putting them at the beginning of the century makes some amount of sense. However, I look at it as not a problem of it being so long before TNG, as it is a problem of being so soon AFTER the TOS movies. In a visual sense, I don't think there's enough of a gap before moving to a different Starfleet design paradigm - while there's no evidence to the contrary, there's little evidence by the end of ST6 that there are many (or any) Excelsior-school ship designs out there. The visual impression (and intent) of the movies is to assume that the day of the Connie era is not yet over.
While of course there's plenty of time for Excelsior derived ships following 2300, there seems not enough time for them to become an "established" design paradigm before all this new-era stuff started showing up. At least, that's my rationalization... I think that the Ambies shouls come later as well, and that poor Harriman should be given at least a LITTLE bit of a chance.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
These n00bz don't seem to realize that NCCs are only a rough guideline for placing ships either. youre not going to decode any definitive answers out of either the stardate system or the NCC numbers, because none exists. its randomly from the minds of many many peoples conflicting ideas.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: I don't know... I find the idea of the Excelsior taking twenty years to construct a little hard to swallow. Granted, R&D on the transwarp would have been going on for years, but the actual construction? Consider: with all the changes, internal and external, the "refit" of the TOS Enterprise is closer to constructing a new vessel (I doubt very much more than a few structural members were retained, given the differences). Yet this major reworking was concluded in eighteen months. Constructing the E-D, a far larger and more complex vessel, only took twelve years. So what were the yard crews building the Excelsior doing for all that time? Taking REALLY long coffee breaks?
Well, there's always the possibility of major structural changes; Starfleet could have been running sims alongside the constructuon but underestimated the changes they'd have to make. Or else the reg number was assigned and then the project was delayed or a major rethink was needed. Just because construction started at a particular time doesn't necessarily mean it was continuous or even on the same design. Starfleet is allowed to make mistakes.
quote:The visual impression (and intent) of the movies is to assume that the day of the Connie era is not yet over.
That's what I like to hear .
quote: While of course there's plenty of time for Excelsior derived ships following 2300
Centaur, Medusa...
-------------------- "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
quote:"There's nothing to say the Ent-C wasn't commissioned with the first batch of Ambassadors at the beginning of the 24th century. Maybe the Ent-B was destroyed after only a few years in service."
Yes, that's possible. What's your point?
I misread. Sorry. I thought you were querying why the Ent-C might have been commissioned so early/quickly. So I speculated that the Ent-B may have had a short life in service...
Woodside Kid
quote:So what were the yard crews building the Excelsior doing for all that time? Taking REALLY long coffee breaks?
Supposedly many design phases to get the Excelsior just right, ie, all the prototype Excelsiors (study models) that they chewed through. It was meant to be a completely new-tech ship - an experiment. They may have started with the four nacelle ship, then went back to two, built another prototype, it failed, built another... etc. 20 years is more than plausible. It may have been a similar process for the Prometheus, and a possible reason why its NX number is so low, because it hails back to very beginnings of the Prometheus project. When finalised and commissioned it was given, for whatever reason, a new active registry (hence the dedication plaque). It's one possible theory.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
1.) Though it of course may be possible that there were larger starships just offscreen during TOS, this seems to go against the very spirit of the show, in which we are told time and time again that the Constitution class was the pinnacle of Federation engineering.
2.) I don't think there is any way to have the Prometheus' plaque and hull registries be different and both be true. In other words, one of them has to be a mistake. If the ship was "recommissioned" then they would paint a new number on the hull. So either it was, and that number is a mistake we should ignore, or it wasn't, and the plaque is a mistake we should ignore.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Twenty years for a ship as large as the Galaxy is alright, twenty years for a ship as technologically advancing as the Excelsior was supposed to be is alright... twenty years for a relatively simple ship such as the Ambassador doesn't sound quite right to me.
Beyond all that, NCC numbers don't have to be assign for a few years after the official start of the project, so you can have it start in 2307 but the NCC numbers are assigned or reserved until 2315.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
