posted
Excelsiors *are* large multimission ships. So I don't think that's the reason. Why decomission one class and commission another if having that sort of capability was unwanted? And after the Excelsiors came the Ambassadors, Galaxy class, Nebula class, etc.
It is possible that Consitutions and Mirandas have almost the same internal deck space, but it seems more efficient the way it's set up in the Constitution. It allows the propulsion system to, again, be more simple in layout. It allows for a single large deflector unit with sensor complexes behind with presumably more strength. A possibly smaller cargo deck results, but the landing bay uses space more efficiently. It also allows for primary hull separation in case of a major emergency. And the Constitution, according to the statistics, can house more people and tertiary systems (e.g. labs, crew relaxation areas, botanical gardens) than Mirandas. Those are my thoughts, anyway.
posted
P.S. before I can again be accused of non-canonism, the P in PTC stands for Power, not Plasma as I originally indicated. Sorry!!
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You make some good points, Daniel. I agree that even though the Connie-refits and the Mirandas are roughly the same volume, the Mirandas have never been shown as anything but utilitarian while the Connies seemed relatively "luxurious" (for lack of a better word). Even so, the Excelsior-class would have easily been able to handle all the mission profiles and needs that the Miranda's weren't up to.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
Printer-friendly view of this topic
