quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: It is possible to have some other class ship with the same hull, but there are really very few truly crossover parts around amongst all the Starfleet classes.
Nacelles, bridges, lifeboats, saucers, the whole front half of the Intrepid and 90% of the Excelsior are used in other class designs. Thems a lot of crossover parts, just not the one in question- the Connie secondary hull. Besides, Stephen, just look at all the variants the Miranda has (nudge, nudge-wink, wink).
I like to think that some of the old Connie Refits went into civillian hands and some were decommisioned into colony transports, merchantmarine and supply freighters as automation became more commonplace: any of those could account for a Conie being in the wreckage. There was four whole hours between the start of the battle and the Enterprise D's arrival: lots of time for general distress calls to go out and be answered by any available ship in the area.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, there are some identical parts, but as close as the Miranda and Constitution nacelles look compared to each other, they aren't identical. Even the Nebula and Galaxy nacelles aren't exact copies.
For the Excelsior (not counting the Ent-B style) there are still two distinct saucer sections.
Small components are the same, I'm talking the big stuff.
posted
Actually the Galaxy and Nebula nacelles are exactly the same. They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons. The Nebula nacelle is just an upside-down Galaxy nacelle.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Well the Nebula saucer section IS distinctly different from a Galaxy Class one
Not if we're talking about the CGI model, it's not.
And now, Jeff, let me say that I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I was more taking affront with the phrase "generally acknowledged", because I don't think it is.
I seem to recall the fact that Roddenberry came up with the "Yorktown" thing is in the Encyclopedia. I'm not sure though, and they could have been wrong.
quote: And, gee golly, the decommissioning dialogue is supported by the presence of a brand new USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B in a film prologue set only a few years later. I think I win this one.
Ahh, right. Now, see, you're arguing two points here. Point one is that the ship was scheduled for decommisioning after it's current mission. Point two is that the ship was scheduled for decomissioning due to the large amount of damage that it received.
Now, true, that would be a very snap decision for Starfleet to make. Presumably they received a notification of the Enterprise's damage shortly after The Day Was Saved. An unknown amount of time passes between that and the Excelsior leaving, but it's probably a few hours (and less than a day). That would be a rapid decision from an organisation that tells to waffle any chance it gets.
But it's still perfectly possibly that the ship wasn't planning on being decomissioned at that point. Starfleet just wanted to decommision the senior crew. However, when the ship got back, someone said "Holy shit! This thing looks a mess. Why don't we decommision it and make one of the new Excelsior-class ships an Enterprise, eh?"
Even if it wasn't that badly damaged, there are plenty of other reasons why they might have decomisioned the ship. As a way of honouring Kirk and co. As a sop to the Klingons to help the peace process. As a way of giving good press to the new Excelsior class line.
And, of course, there are a few years between STVI and Generations. Plenty of time for the ship to get destroyed. If it's been decomissioned, why isn't it in the fleet museum, eh? (There's no way that Picard would say "There's one in the fleet museum" if it was an Enterprise. In fact, there's no way he wouldn't mention to Scotty that his old ship isn't still in the Fleet museum.)
quote: The Enterprise-Nil is schedules to be retired in Star Trek III ... I forget how old the Admiral states she is, but I know he's off by a few decades, she's what, forty at that point?
He says "twenty", but yeah, he's wrong. 5 Years under April, 10 under Pike, another 5 under Kirk, 2 and a half year refit, potentially another 5 year mission under Kirk, faffing around as a training vessel for an amount of time that I can't remember. 40 sounds about right.
Of course, Starfleet is a bit eratic with ship ages. Riker says in "All Good Things" that the Ent-D was going to be decomissioned before it even hit 30, and that was a ship designed to last 100 years. The only possibility would be if the ship was badly damaged, and that would support the notion that Starfleet prefers to decomission ships rather than repair them (for god knows what reason).
The "ships from the same time period" is more valid, although there are still some qualifiers. Oberths are pretty much just tiny science ships. Some are even crewed by civilians. There are obviously not anywhere near state of the art, and can be run by a small crew (yeah, the Pegasus throws a spanner into these works, and I shall explain that by, er, look over there!)
Excelsiors are at least twenty years newer than Constitutions, and possibly even more. It's also possible that, like Galaxy's, they were designed to "last". But they are still far from state of the art, and often implied to be old:
"They send you Galaxy-class boys out to the far regions. Me, I just haul my butt back and forth between Starbases."
"That's a lot of fire-power for an old Excelsior-class ship."
I don't think we've ever seen a Constellation in proper service, have we? You've got the Stargazer, which was a relic; the Hathaway, which meant so little so Starfleet that they just left it uncrewed in orbit of some random planet; and a ship in Picard's rapidly pulled together (so rapidly that half the ships didn't have full crews) fleet in Redemption II. They could easily be a retired line.
And Mirandas are, well, freaks. Complete, honest to goodness freaks. If they were just like the Lantree, then fair enough, but with examples like the Saratoga having families, the only possible explanation is that, somehow, they are incredibly versatile ships that are extremely cheap to build, or something.
-------------------- 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
We saw the Victory as an active service ship... an apparently still is by the time of the Dominion War. As for the Hathaway, it could have been towed there by another ship from a starbase. We did see the Enterprise towing her at the end of the episode. Maybe she was being returned to the starbase.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Hathaway could have easily have been a old training vessel that was replaced with something new and then intentionally damaged to mke Riker's test more of a challenge. As to old ships serving in the Dominion WAr, we're overlooking the relative peace the Fed had between the Cardassian War and W359 (by wich time they were obviously complacent). Shipbuilding and design is low priority in peacetime. Also consider they wouldnt want to start a shipbuilding esclation with the Klingons or Cardassians so they foolishly kept ships far longer than prudent, lost a bunch of newer ships (the NCC-4XXX-5XXX family?) to the cardies, then some of it's newest to the Borg then later to the Klingons....they probably had to use any ship still in service (Miranda freighters as example) to fill gaps in their defenses.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Actually the Galaxy and Nebula nacelles are exactly the same. They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons. The Nebula nacelle is just an upside-down Galaxy nacelle.
Actually the connecting point is where I was making my distinction. If you look at the connecting part of both filming models, the Nebula Class connecting point (the part with the airlock) is bigger.
posted
I know that portion is different, but it's really part of the pylon and not the nacelle as is evident on the third nacelle on the (dreadnought) E-D. So I still say they are completely identical. I was talking about the points and structures on the nacelles themselves... as to where the nacelles would be bolted or welded to the pylons and where the PTCs would connect to the nacelles.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Then what did you mean by "They have the exact same connecting points and structures to their corresponding pylons"?
Anyway, this seems to be nitpicking. What I was trying to get at is that in a general sense, a lot of Starfleet technology seems to have similar looking components; having a Starfleet motif, if you will, but if you really scrutinize it, there aren't really a lot of actual identical components in the big picture.
quote:Originally posted by Dat: We saw the Victory as an active service ship... an apparently still is by the time of the Dominion War. As for the Hathaway, it could have been towed there by another ship from a starbase. We did see the Enterprise towing her at the end of the episode. Maybe she was being returned to the starbase.
Possibly. Although we also saw the Enterprise warp off without her, rather strangely.
Wait, when did we see the Victory as an active service ship? And why was it still in service during the Dominion war?
-------------------- 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 PsyLiam: [QUOTE]Wait, when did we see the Victory as an active service ship? And why was it still in service during the Dominion war?
The Victory was an active service ship when it rendez-voused with the Enterprise-D at the end of "Elementary, Dear Data".
The Victory was again mentioned on the wall chart on DS9 as USS Victory NCC-9754 (same as TNG's Victory) of Dominion War casualties and MIAs.
quote:But they are still far from state of the art, and often implied to be old:
Sure, and in 2460 the same dialogue might apply to Galaxy, Defiant, and Sovereign-Class ships still in service. The point is that the Excelsior-Class was built to last!
posted
Victory could have been a training ship: it's loss would account for the Defiant class Valiant being used to train dead squad.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Er, we were talking about the Hathaway being towed, not the Victory.
"Sure, and in 2460 the same dialogue might apply to Galaxy, Defiant, and Sovereign-Class ships still in service. The point is that the Excelsior-Class was built to last!"
I know. And so was the Miranda, obviously. The Constitution wasn't. Although I don't think there's ever been dialogue stating that the entire class is not longer in serive.
Plus (and I forgot to add this earlier), this whole "retiring of an entire class" seems really, really silly. What the hell do they get out of it? The only way it makes sense is if Starfleet has the ability to produce Starships willy nilly, but has a shortage of people.
-------------------- 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
