quote:This is, again, mostly just thoughts based on what you would *like* to see rather than what you actually *did* see.
If you mean that I would rather have seen newer designs instead of the same old crap I saw in the movies, then yes, you're absolutely right. I also believe that almost everyone else on this board would have probably felt the same way.
quote:You proceed from the assumption that all of those Excelsiors and Mirandas were older vessels. However, if you consider that these designs might have still been in production even well into the 24th century, the registries make fine sense.
Yes, I agree with that. However, that wasn't my point. My point was that once the design lineage tech-wise took a turn with the Ambassador class, it should have kept going along those lines. Instead, we still have older-style ships both in production at the same time, and even surpassing the more advanced vessel for decades to come. That, in my opinion, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
quote:Remember, just because a DESIGN is old, it doesn't mean that the INDIVIDUAL SHIPS are equally as old. The Lantree was indeed supposed to be an old vessel dating from the late 23rd century. However, other Mirandas like the Majestic and Nautilus were not. (They weren't brand new either, of course, but they were much more recent.)
Yet they looked EXACTLY the same in the exterior. We saw that even an older vessel like the Lantree had a more 24th-century interior (presumably because of a refit), but the exterior remained the same as the late 23rd century equivalent. Again, in my opinion, that doesn't make sense.
quote:just like 2002 VW Bug looks a lot like the 1962 one on the outside, but there a helluva lotta difference under the hood.
But it doesn't look EXACTLY like the 1962 Bug on the outside, again acknowledging my point.
-------------------- "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
I too would have LOVED to see more new designs in Trek, but it just didn't happen. But rather than pining away over that fact, or trying to ret-con things to be more in line with "what it should have been like," I go for a straight interpretation of what was seen.
Whether I like it or not.
And as to making sense, like I said, there's been one hell of a lot of stuff in the past thirty-some years of Trek. Nature of the beast.
I can live with it.
I can even live with "Threshold."
I understand what you're saying, though.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: But it doesn't look EXACTLY like the 1962 Bug on the outside, again acknowledging my point.
Well, I'd say this is predominantly an issue of aesthetics. I see no real reason why VW couldn't have used the exact same body shell as the original and still incorporate all or most of the new tech that's included in the new Beetle. They just wanted a "new look." Starfleet, on the other hand, wouldn't care about giving a fresh face to its vessels, and additionally it would presumably be more cost-effective to leave the basic spaceframes as unmodified as possible.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A case for newer ships of older design: The dedication plaque for the USS Brattain lists the launch date as Stardate 22519.5, or 2345, for a hull number of NCC-21166. So new Mirandas were being constructed at least two years after the start of the Galaxy Class Development Project, and the Brattain is one of the earliest of the newer Mirandas. There's still the whole 31xxx series which, if NCC are roughly chronological, happens later than 2345.
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: The dedication plaque for the USS Brattain lists the launch date as Stardate 22519.5, or 2345, for a hull number of NCC-21166. So new Mirandas were being constructed at least two years after the start of the Galaxy Class Development Project, and the Brattain is one of the earliest of the newer Mirandas. There's still the whole 31xxx series which, if NCC are roughly chronological, happens later than 2345.
Stardates are rarely trust worthy try working it out on other dates... besides that the Galaxy Class is a better datapoint... 2341 and the NX Galaxy's registry.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Actually, that would screw things up even more! Because that would mean that Starfleet only built 5000 ships over the next 35 years, considering the USS Sao Paulo which started construction some time between 2371 and 2375. Not to mention that the Danube-class runabouts were new designs as of 2370 or so, and can't have been in the design process for too long given their small size.
-------------------- “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
Stardates on the dedication plaques should probably be treated as the dates of the most recent launch or commissioning. That is, the plaque would have been refitted along with the refitting of the vessel. An extensive internal refit and associated layover period could be considered "decommissioning" by Starfleet, like it was considered "decommissioning" by most pre-20th century navies.
posted
I will repectfully disagree with you on the recommissioning point. I can't find evidence in Trek that this has been done before, most of the dates on plaques make sense. As an example, by your logic, the plaque for the Excelsior should probably list a later date than the Enterprise-A's plaque, since the Excelsior was 'recomissioned' from it's NX status to NCC, including several yard changes. Yet the stardate on the Excelsior plaque from Trek VI still lists a date consistent with Trek III's timeframe.
J: I don't quite understand what you meant with the USS Galaxy reference. It was launched in 2357 and has a hull number of 70637. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
According to a line by O'Brien the Runabouts were first commissioned in 2368.
As an aside,
TNG era Stardates do make more sense than most people give them credit for. I have a large sheet of paper here where I worked out how TNG Stardates are likely calculated. After figuring out the numbers on my chart, I went through my canon resources for any stardates that had corresponding calendar dates. My chart has not been off by more than 2 days max, and in most cases is dead on. The first test was the Enterprise-D's launch date of October 4, 2363 and Stardate 40759.5. Although we didn't have the official date of Voyager's commissioning, my chart worked it out to the premiere date of the Voyager series in mid-January! Someone was thinkin'! My chart is only reliable for TNG era dates back to 2323.
posted
I have no problem with starships having lifespans in excess of 100 years. You don't need every ship in the fleet to be capable of warp 9.9 or to have a huge weapons load out. If modern vessels are designed with lifespans of 50+ years then what is the problem? They wouldn't necessarily be in frontline service or even in service for all this time just in a state of readiness to be reactivated. Oh, and the ultimate example of ships lasting a long time? Napoleonic ships of the line were used as training and accomodation ships during WW2. Unfortuneately they went and scuttled most of them after the war .
-------------------- "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
SoundEffect: Have you tested your theory w/ the stardate in "Data's Day" (corresponding to Diwali, a Hindu festival) and that late VOY episode that takes place on "Zefram Cochrane Day" or whatever?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Here's a question. What's the difference between a Miranda with a 18xx number and one with 31xxx number? Definitely not the design? What about everythign else that can be swapped?
Just because the outter frame looks old, does not mean the whole class is old. Those ships with the 31xxx registries, probably have the same equipment as newly designed ships built around the same time.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
...Something easily proven, given all the non-TOS movie-style sets we've seen on various Mirandas over the years. Lantree, Br!ttain, and Saratoga all had TNG-era LCARS and free-standing consoles.
posted
This is not a thread about stardates; it suffices to say that you can't precisely convert them even in the TNG era, although the latter are more regular than those of TOS.
Let's be clear on this -- Star Trek is not a show about technological progress. The early outlines made it clear that this was a show where space travel has become so easy that it calls to mind the days of the sailing ships; it was the only way it could've been done on a weekly budget, and it also allowed the writers to focus on the characters rather than the technology.
Quite in that same spirit, every time a new technology is developed (M-5, transwarp, quantum slipstream, you name it), it doesn't work! You have to make a new series set a century later for any changes to be seen, and even then they're only minor.
According to the Star Trek universe, our technological progress will start to decline 150 years from now. It may be due to our own efforts, it may be due to the Vulcans or other aliens that agreed to share their technology in the process of forming the Federation.
Boris
[ December 04, 2002, 18:32: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:...Something easily proven, given all the non-TOS movie-style sets we've seen on various Mirandas over the years. Lantree, Br!ttain, and Saratoga all had TNG-era LCARS and free-standing consoles.
Then how come no one gets it? You can have a whole fleet of Excelsiors built in the 24th century that probably can do the same mission with the same efficiency as a newly designed ship. More or less. We're not comparing wooden ships to nuclear ships of today! We're comparing 1960's ships to 2002 ships.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My chart is only reliable for TNG era dates back to 2323.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
