Can they still use the Constitution class?
Dswynne
"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from
Highlander: The Series)
E.Holton
Dswynne said...
>Why or why not?
The Constitution hullform has been long since retired from Starfleet,
replaced by the 4 nacelled Constellation class (USS Stargazer) and
Excelsior classes.
It's hull geometry might have made it unsuitable for further warp drive
upgrades, limiting overall speed and effectiveness for it's exploration
purpose.
It may well have been unsuitable for other technology upgrades without
major overhauls which would have been at least as costly as building a
new ship of similar size. Witness the huge amount of difference between
the TOS Enterprise and it's refitted state in the first movie. As an
experimental class upgrade for the most prestigious ship in the fleet at
that time, it worked. As a general fleet refit, it probably wouldn't.
Even by ST:WoK, Constitution class starships had been relegated to
training vessels, although there was some new production (Enterprise-A
in ST:TVH) and by ST:TUD we see the Excelsior in full commission and
almost certainly in full production.
Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
private hands or in foreign navies, and the only one in Starfleet is the
one in the fleet museum (referred to in 'Relics').
Thinking of that episode, what *did* Scotty do after he left?
--
Euan Holton Email: E.R.J....@top-hat.demon.co.uk
Travis Offenberger
would be much of a problem. The Miranda is still in service in its original
state and as per the DS9 tech manual (which I admit is hit and miss) it has
a top speed of warp 9.2. Sometimes refiting what you have as opposed to
just building a new ship is the way to go. In the early 1980s the US Navy
wanted to bring back the battleship. Which was easier? Tooling up to
produce brand new battlewaggons or extensively refurbishing the mothballed
Iowa-class ships. When they were done those four ships were some of the
most advance and powerful ships in the fleet. It all comes down to how much
time you want to invest.
E.Holton <E.R.J....@top-hat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nTlh0ZBd$cg4...@top-hat.demon.co.uk...
Timo S Saloniemi
>Why or why not?
Probably the ships themselves would be in acceptable condition and could
be upgraded to do secondary cannon-fodder jobs, just like Miranda class
ships (like the old Reliant) are doing in DS9.
However, it is unlikely that Paramount would ever again use a ship type
that is so closely connected to the late captain Kirk, lest viewers be
confused. Thus, one has to think of and explanation as to why all the
ships were retired shortly after Kirk's passing. There are plenty of
possibilities: perhaps all were so heavily used that the hulls succumbed
to fatigue? Perhaps the ships were already so often refitted to keep
them at the cutting edge that they became too cramped for further
refits, while the more modest Mirandas received less but longer-lasting
refits? Perhaps attrition of Constitutions was higher, or initial
procurement numbers drastically lower?
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
place. Canonically, we know that there were "only 12 like her in
the fleet" in the first season of TOS, and that at least 3 of them
were destroyed by the end of the movies (Intrepid, Defiant and, of
course, E-nil). Several others were seriously damaged, but there's
no definitive info on whether they might have been repaired In the
backstory created by GR for ST:TMP, the E-nil was said to have been
the *only* C-Class starship to have returned to Earth from it's 5-yr
mission intact, and although this is decidedly non-canon, once the
E-A is refitted and given to Kirk and crew in STIV, *we never see
another C-Class starship again,* not even an unidentified one in the
background of a spacedock scene; all we see are variants that use
the same basic saucer and nacelle units, like the Miranda Class Reliant,
so one might well conjecture that the E-nil and E-A might well have
been their cenury's equivalents of the 20th century Iowa Class
battleships, a few remaining older ships kept updated with refits
until they could eventually be replaced (by the Excelsior class),
because there was nothing else available in their size range.
GeneK
E.Holton
>As far as the warp geometry being a limiting factor, I don't think that
>would be much of a problem. The Miranda is still in service in its original
>state and as per the DS9 tech manual (which I admit is hit and miss) it has
>a top speed of warp 9.2. Sometimes refiting what you have as opposed to
>just building a new ship is the way to go. In the early 1980s the US Navy
>wanted to bring back the battleship. Which was easier? Tooling up to
>produce brand new battlewaggons or extensively refurbishing the mothballed
>Iowa-class ships. When they were done those four ships were some of the
>most advance and powerful ships in the fleet. It all comes down to how much
>time you want to invest.
The Miranda already would have significantly different warp geometry due
to it's considerably different hullform. Also, it was a new class
between ST:TMP and ST:WoK whilst the Constitution class was old when
Kirk took command of the Enterprise - some estimates have the Enterprise
itself as some 15-20 years old at that point (one or two five year tours
under Pike, plus any tours that Captain April undertook).
There probably comes a time for any ship class when it's no longer
worthwhile upgrading them - after all, would you expect to see an
upgraded HMS Victory in the British Navy (using an extreme example...)?
Aren't the Iowa class ships back in mothballs again? In their case the
refits couldn't hide the fact that they were too big and too costly to
run for their usefulness. Further refits to the constitution class
would probably have been unable to hide their shortcomings in the modern
Starfleet, like size, weapons hardpoints, hull material etc etc.
Overall, though, as the Constitution class hasn't (to my knowledge) been
seen in a contemporary setting in TNG, DS9 or Voyager I think it's safe
to say it's retired.
AquaMan
retired from service. In judging from the movie time line, the E-A may
have very well been the last one to be built, even though it didn't
start it's career as the Enterprise.
In looking through a few text sources, the refit done to the E-nil
could be better described as a complete rebuild. This is due in fact
to the TOS Enterprise being out-of-date by the time she returned to
Spacedock. The new design kept the orginal concept intact, i.e. the
saucer, the Engineering hull and the nacelles, but beefed them up. The
new M/AM intermix chamber and support systems were heavier. The
nacelle structures and the new staged warp coils were also heavier.
These forced a complete rebuild from the keel line up for the
Engineering hull and the nacelle pylons. The new nacelles were so
heavy that a second design form had to be drawn up to re-design the
strongbacks in order to support them. This lead to the re-design to
the SIF and IDF systems, ship wide. Lets not forget to the huge "park"
in the lower forward section of the Engineering section that runs the
length of her beam.
The Saucer section is also bigger than the TOS version. The larger
impulse engines and the impulse crystal take up more room in the aft
section of the Saucer. The improved power transfer system to the
phaser banks as well as the advent of mounted phaser hard points on the
dorsal side of the Saucer, improving weapons firing arcs and coverage,
took up more room as well, along with the improved computer core. The
refit also called for more quarters for a few more personnel(exact
number is unknown, maybe someone can compare and contrast). These
requirments lead to the re-location of the two photon torpedo tubes to
the housing at the base of the saucer support pylon, a location that
actually improves the PTL field of fire.
Basically, this was the last major refit for the "Constitution"-class.
Other than a few changes seen in the bridge module in ST:TVH, ST:TFF
and the new and improved M/AMRC seen in ST:TUC, the ship remained
unchanged until her decommissioning.
Now, as to why the "Miranda"-class is still around in such large
numbers remains a mystery. All three sub-types have been represented
in TNG and DS9 (type 1-no rollbar or phaser cannons: USS Lantree(TNG),
type-2-no rollbar, but will phaser cannons: USS Saratoga(DS9), and type
3-rollbar and cannons: USS Britannia(TNG)). The "Miranda"s were seen
more during the Dominion War than anyother time. And I agree, they
were basically cannon fodder for the Jem'hadar. Maybe, due to the
different hull design, refits and upgrades required less re-structuring
than the "Constitution"s.
Anyway, that my two-cents....
AQM
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
GeneK
of the C-Class refit than the TOS version. One possible
scenario might be that the saucer and nacelle designs were
already on the board meant for the upcoming new Miranda
class when the E-nil made its glorious return to Earth,
and because they felt the need to keep an operating
Enterprise before the public eye, Starfleet retrofitted
the Miranda's innovations to the C-Class, possibly even
delaying the introduction of Miranda so that when it did
make its debut it would have a "family resemblance" to the
E-nil refit and be able to bask in some of that ship's
glory.
GeneK
Timo S Saloniemi
>Previously in discussion "Can they still use the Constitution class?",
>>Why or why not?
>
>The Constitution hullform has been long since retired from Starfleet,
>replaced by the 4 nacelled Constellation class (USS Stargazer) and
>Excelsior classes.
Agreed on both counts. What I think happened was that the Constitution
(featuring new tech jury-rigged onto an old hull configuration) was
supposed to be replaced by the same tech mounted onto a purpose-built
hull that would make more use of it - the Constellation. The Excelsior
was a separate project that tested transwarp, but unexpectedly its
original purpose failed, yet a mission as a next-generation "backbone"
starship panned out. So there were two parallel designs, the "conservative"
Constellation and the "radical" Excelsior, and thus the Constellation got
the short straw when the Excelsior design was proven.
>It's hull geometry might have made it unsuitable for further warp drive
>upgrades, limiting overall speed and effectiveness for it's exploration
>purpose.
It could still have served in secondary roles, which is where some
early four-digit Mirandas were seen. But such ships would have been
rare in deep space, so we could easily have missed a Constitution
in a role similar to that of, say, the Lantree.
OTOH, there appears to have been a later production batch of Mirandas,
but not of Constitutions or Constellations. Perhaps Constitution-refit
tech was still top of the line in the early 24th century, just before
the Ambassadors, and Starfleet built all its smaller vessels to those
specs - but it happened to have enough heavy cruisers at the time,
counting both the newer Constellations and the surviving Constitutions?
The Constitutions would then be retired in an era where replacements would be
more modern; the Constellations would be retired only after we got a good
glimpse of them in TNG; and the Mirandas would face replacement only
at the time of the DS9 war.
All designs could have been equally valid and working starships, but
their time of production simply dictated their time of retirement, and
the Constitutions unfortunately were built at the beginning of their
"era", the Mirandas at the very end of this "era".
>It may well have been unsuitable for other technology upgrades without
>major overhauls which would have been at least as costly as building a
>new ship of similar size. Witness the huge amount of difference between
>the TOS Enterprise and it's refitted state in the first movie. As an
>experimental class upgrade for the most prestigious ship in the fleet at
>that time, it worked. As a general fleet refit, it probably wouldn't.
Agreed on this as well. Constellation and Miranda would be purpose-built
applications of the new tech (although I'd like to think there also
was a TOS-era Miranda that got refitted).
>Even by ST:WoK, Constitution class starships had been relegated to
>training vessels, although there was some new production (Enterprise-A
>in ST:TVH) and by ST:TUD we see the Excelsior in full commission and
>almost certainly in full production.
The Excelsior in TUC didn't convince me of active production - she
was still receiving refits (the impulse engines) and probably testing
possibilities. The building of the E-B to altered specs would seem to
confirm that the design was still in flux. The Excelsior was probably
put in regular service despite being a "failure" (in her original
intended role of transwarp ship), and Starfleet only built sister ships
after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
>Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
>to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
>and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
Indeed. Let's say a structural life of 80 years suggested in the TNG TM
would apply to TOS ships as well as to the E-D. Constitutions would be
structurally exhausted in the 2320s in the best case, assuming 2240s
launch. Possible refitted Mirandas would be goners at that time, too.
Constellations would fall apart in the 2360s assuming 2280s conception
(and most of them were probably built a bit later) - perfectly matching
their appearances in TNG and disappearance in DS9. Mirandas built with
five-digit registries could originate from the 2320s and 30s, giving
them retirement dates of 2400 and 2410 and thus an excuse for their
presence in DS9. Excelsiors would probably be mass built in the 2310s
(NCC-14000 or so) and 2340s (NCC-42000 or so), with plenty of life
left by the time of DS9 as well.
Of course, ships leading active careers of exploration and combat would
get fatigued faster. Oberths, OTOH, would probably have structural lives
of 160 years instead of 80 as a default.
>By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
>private hands or in foreign navies, and the only one in Starfleet is the
>one in the fleet museum (referred to in 'Relics').
The only UNREFITTED one, mind you. There could be a refitted one or
several somewhere (one was seen floating dead in space in "BoBW II",
after all).
>Thinking of that episode, what *did* Scotty do after he left?
According to various novels, he saved the universe sixteen times over.
By canon accounts, no idea - I suspect he went the way he'd always wanted,
drunk as a skunk in the engineering compartment of a shuttle he
had been tuning to go at warp 9.999992 but had neglected to note that
the nose was pointing straight into a giant blue star.
Timo Saloniemi
Tommy Tennebø
The Constitution class was a state of the art star ship designed to be the
best long rage heavy cruiser. while the Miranda was a sheep easy to build
and easy to upgrade do to its modular design. u know ! out with one box and
in with an other :)
While the high performance design of the Constitution is more difficult to
upgrade over time. The first major refit of the Constitution class
(Enterprise class) ST 1) took 18 months if I remember correctly
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> skrev i melding
news:388230F3.5DD94906@genek_hates_spammers.com...
E.Holton
>It could still have served in secondary roles, which is where some
>early four-digit Mirandas were seen. But such ships would have been
>rare in deep space, so we could easily have missed a Constitution
>in a role similar to that of, say, the Lantree.
Not an unreasonable point, but even in secondary roles Constitution
vessels in active service would have been rare due to their sheer age by
TNG+ era.
>>It may well have been unsuitable for other technology upgrades without
>>major overhauls which would have been at least as costly as building a
>>new ship of similar size. Witness the huge amount of difference between
>>the TOS Enterprise and it's refitted state in the first movie. As an
>>experimental class upgrade for the most prestigious ship in the fleet at
>>that time, it worked. As a general fleet refit, it probably wouldn't.
>Agreed on this as well. Constellation and Miranda would be purpose-built
>applications of the new tech (although I'd like to think there also
>was a TOS-era Miranda that got refitted).
Although not canon in most eyes, FASA did publish a TOS-style ship with
some similarities to the Miranda class (Loknar class I think, although
it may have been another one). I think they may well have created some
back story for the Miranda being refitted from this postulated earlier
class much as the Enterprise received its refit. Unfortunately, I don't
have the relevant texts to hand (they're buried in a box somewhere) so I
can't say for sure.
>>Even by ST:WoK, Constitution class starships had been relegated to
>>training vessels, although there was some new production (Enterprise-A
>>in ST:TVH) and by ST:TUD we see the Excelsior in full commission and
>>almost certainly in full production.
>The Excelsior in TUC didn't convince me of active production - she
>was still receiving refits (the impulse engines) and probably testing
>possibilities. The building of the E-B to altered specs would seem to
>confirm that the design was still in flux. The Excelsior was probably
>put in regular service despite being a "failure" (in her original
>intended role of transwarp ship)
I forget exactly how much time had elapsed between ST:SfS and ST:TUC but
it is on the order of several years. Plenty of time, I would have
thought, for Starfleet to refit with regular warp drive and conduct
sufficient tests to validate the Excelsior class as a regular ship of
the line, giving the green light for production.
Of course, just because production could have begun, doesn't necessarily
mean that they had *completed* any further ships by ST:TUC...
>, and Starfleet only built sister ships
>after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
Is that an aesthetic or operational objection to E-B? Aesthetic I can
understand (it's your taste, who am I to dictate?) whilst operationally,
it acquitted itself admirably considering the circumstances and the
condition it was in.
>>Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
>>to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
>>and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
>Indeed. Let's say a structural life of 80 years suggested in the TNG TM
>would apply to TOS ships as well as to the E-D.
E-D I thought had an expected spaceframe lifetime of 100 years (TNG TM)?
In that case, because the Galaxy class project would definitely include
the latest in materials science (frame and skin) and SIF technology I
would say that earlier ships would have a shorter lifetime. 80 years
isn't an unreasonable assumption :)
>Constitutions would be
>structurally exhausted in the 2320s in the best case, assuming 2240s
>launch. Possible refitted Mirandas would be goners at that time, too.
>Constellations would fall apart in the 2360s assuming 2280s conception
>(and most of them were probably built a bit later) - perfectly matching
>their appearances in TNG and disappearance in DS9. Mirandas built with
>five-digit registries could originate from the 2320s and 30s, giving
>them retirement dates of 2400 and 2410 and thus an excuse for their
>presence in DS9. Excelsiors would probably be mass built in the 2310s
>(NCC-14000 or so) and 2340s (NCC-42000 or so), with plenty of life
>left by the time of DS9 as well.
In the case of Excelsior class vessels, I would have thought that
limited production at least would have started before the turn of the
century, but I'm sure we can agree to differ :)
>Of course, ships leading active careers of exploration and combat would
>get fatigued faster.
In some cases, instantaneously fatigued due to catastrophic circumstance
:)
>Oberths, OTOH, would probably have structural lives
>of 160 years instead of 80 as a default.
Possibly not. AFAIK Oberth class ships were long-range pathfinder and
long-term science vessels. Some missions falling within those
parameters would be quite stressful - close observation of stars or
singularities, travelling extended distances etc etc. As a class, I
wouldn't expect Oberth vessels to have an average life expectancy any
higher than the norm.
>>By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
>>private hands or in foreign navies, and the only one in Starfleet is the
>>one in the fleet museum (referred to in 'Relics').
>The only UNREFITTED one, mind you. There could be a refitted one or
>several somewhere (one was seen floating dead in space in "BoBW II",
>after all).
Possibly, although they definitely would be up for decommissioning by
that time.
>>Thinking of that episode, what *did* Scotty do after he left?
>According to various novels, he saved the universe sixteen times over.
>By canon accounts, no idea - I suspect he went the way he'd always wanted,
>drunk as a skunk in the engineering compartment of a shuttle he
>had been tuning to go at warp 9.999992 but had neglected to note that
>the nose was pointing straight into a giant blue star.
LOL, although he probably would have rigged the shields to take
advantage of the metaphasic effect, and probably improved it so that he
wouldn't have noticed passing through it... :)
GeneK
are noncanon, consider the backstory that Gene Roddenberry created for
ST:TMP. Although the story itself is not canon either, since it was
never used onscreen, it was nevertheless in the background while ST:TMP's
art and ship designs were underway, and is to some extent responsible
for them. And since STII reused the ST:TMP miniatures and based its
new ones on them, for that film as well.
In this backstory, the E-nil returns to an Earth that is questioning
its investments in deep space exploration (a situation that paralleled
the US in the post-Apollo, pre-shuttle 1970's when the movie was
conceived), and talking about cutting back on appropriations for
Starfleet. Then the E-nil returns, propelling Kirk and crew - and
Starfleet - back into the public's adulation, and knowing a PR bonanza
when it sees one, Starfleet decides it *has* to keep an active-duty
Enterprise in the fleet (*and* a James Kirk at home where the public
can see him as the living embodiment of Starfleet, and not back out in
deep space out of sight and out of mind, hence his promotion to Admiral
and assignment as Chief of Starfleet Operations). Thus, despite its age,
the E-nil goes into Spacedock for a refit. End of the backstory.
Now, the E-nil was indeed "state of the art" when it was built, but in
Trek years, that was over 20 years ago at the time of the E-nil's return,
and like a 1950's B-52 in the 1970's, there might be many newer, smaller,
"cheaper" designs that could outperform it, but only *if* you can get the
necessary approvals to build them, and with appropriations for new ships
pared to the bone, Starfleet would naturally propose new ships that used
less resource-intensive, adaptable modular designs. So what's the easiest
and fastest approach to refitting the 20+ year old E-nil and getting it
back out of Spacedock before the public's attention starts to wander?
Adapt the warp nacelle and power core modules designed for the proposed
Miranda Class vessels! And while you're at it, it wouldn't hurt if the
new ships you're trying to get approved *look* like the heroic Enterprise,
would it? So let's restyle the exterior of the E-nil's saucer to more
closely resemble the designs for the Miranda as well! You can see a 20th
century parallel to this idea in the 1980's refits of the US Navy's Iowa
class battleships; most of the new "high tech" equipment installed alongside
their 40 year old "big guns" was originally designed for newer, smaller,
*cheaper* ships, but were adapted to the old "fighting ladies" because the
Navy wanted to have those big ships as a means of "visually projecting" US
naval power. While it might be nice to think that Starfleet thought so
much of the "Big E" that they devoted all their resources toward totally
redesigning and rebuilding it from the keel up, a more realistic scenario
would have them refitting it to update it with all the new tech that had
been developed for newer ships during the decades it had been in service,
and the fact that the later E-A got less of a rebuild (note the shuttle
bay in STV that is almost a deadringer for the one in the TOS Enterprise
as opposed to the major rework of the E-nil refit) tends to support the
idea that both ships were something less than "all new," despite their
restyled appearances.
GeneK
GeneK
(for example, the "Dreadnought" depicted in the FJ Tech Manual), but
in the appropriations-unfriendly environment of GR's post-TOS back-
story, they would probably have scaled the massive "bigger-better"
ship proposals down to something "leaner, meaner, more efficient"
that would have a better chance of winning approval. After all, the
post-TOS galaxy must have seemed pretty calm, what with the Organian
treaty ending the threat of all-out war with the Klingons and all. By
the time V'Ger showed up and started on its beeline for Earth, the *only*
ship in the vicinity capable of intercepting it before it got there was the
still not launched E-nil refit! How secure would they have to have felt to
not have a *single* starship patrolling the area? I would speculate that
Kirk's heroic mission to save Earth (a hero yet again) let loose a veritable
flood of good will toward Starfleet construction, resulting in the apparently
massive numbers of Miranda Class ships they managed to produce, and
possibly resulted in the "great experiment" of the trans-warp Excelsior as
well.
GeneK
Dswynne wrote:
> Oh. I get it. While the Miranda-class was easy to keep due to its design, the
> Constitution-class was orignally to be replaced by a similiar (yet bigger)
> class: the Excelsior-class. Still, I would think that engineers would find a
> way to compensate the less efficient design of the Constitution-class.
Admiral Korel
>was still receiving refits (the impulse engines) and probably testing
>possibilities. The building of the E-B to altered specs would seem to
>confirm that the design was still in flux. The Excelsior was probably
>put in regular service despite being a "failure" (in her original
>intended role of transwarp ship), and Starfleet only built sister ships
>after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
Er... how was the E-B the way "not to do it"? It worked well enough to have
at least one more such ship built, the Lakota. The only faults of the E-B
that we know of were caused by some shortsightedness among the engineers (I
mean, would you let out a ship with no tractor beams, photon torpedoes or
medical staff?) And /why/ was the E-B the only ship within range of the
Lakul et al anyway - surely there was at least /one/ other operational
starship in the Sol system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan McEvoy, morg...@esatclear.ie
"It's like the laws of physics just went out the window."
"And why shouldn't they? They're so inconvenient!"
Dswynne
Constitution-class was orignally to be replaced by a similiar (yet bigger)
class: the Excelsior-class. Still, I would think that engineers would find a
wouldn't be surprise that the remaining space-worthy Constitution-class
starships were turned over to the equivalent of the space Merchant Marines
(non-Canon of course). Thanks for your responses.
Timo S Saloniemi
>Previously in discussion "Can they still use the Constitution class?",
>Timo S Saloniemi said...
>>Agreed on this as well. Constellation and Miranda could be purpose-built
>>applications of the new tech (although I'd like to think there also
>>was a TOS-era Miranda that got refitted).
>
>Although not canon in most eyes, FASA did publish a TOS-style ship with
>some similarities to the Miranda class (Loknar class I think, although
>it may have been another one). I think they may well have created some
>back story for the Miranda being refitted from this postulated earlier
>class much as the Enterprise received its refit. Unfortunately, I don't
>have the relevant texts to hand (they're buried in a box somewhere) so I
>can't say for sure.
There are two principal "TOS Miranda" designs and back stories out there
- a "Benning" class and a "Surya" class. The former is essentially the
Reliant with all its components replaced by TOS ones, while the latter
assumes curved pylons jutting from the center of the lower stern. Both
are really nifty, and have been used in various works as a basis for
further variants. So Miranda could be as old as Constitution, with all
the 18XX-range ships seen actually dating from the 2240s originally.
And old age would have gotten them as well as the Constitutions by the
time of TNG - all the Mirandas we do see in the DS9 era have five-digit
registries and are probably newbuilds from the early 24th century.
>I forget exactly how much time had elapsed between ST:SfS and ST:TUC but
>it is on the order of several years. Plenty of time, I would have
>thought, for Starfleet to refit with regular warp drive and conduct
>sufficient tests to validate the Excelsior class as a regular ship of
>the line, giving the green light for production.
>
>Of course, just because production could have begun, doesn't necessarily
>mean that they had *completed* any further ships by ST:TUC...
There are a couple of Excelsiors with registries in the 2XXX range, so
either Starfleet jumped the gun and built those when the Excelsior
was still undergoing testing, or then it built them immediately after
she failed the tests and reverted to normal warp drive. In any case,
I do think there were several Excelsior hulls in existence back in
TUC - I just think they weren't very practical ships at the time,
and weren't built in great numbers until the early 24th century.
>>, and Starfleet only built sister ships
>>after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
>Is that an aesthetic or operational objection to E-B? Aesthetic I can
>understand (it's your taste, who am I to dictate?) whilst operationally,
>it acquitted itself admirably considering the circumstances and the
>condition it was in.
It is an objection that *Starfleet* clearly had, since no ships of the
E-B type were built again. Not until the Lakota, plus perhaps a few unseen
vessels (but they would have to be few if they were unseen). Perhaps
the extra impulse engines and whatnot were found to be superfluous
after all. Perhaps Starfleet learned to pack all that more neatly
inside the standard Excelsior hull. Perhaps the E-B type was only
built as a "command cruiser" to supplement the regular arsenal of
"heavy cruiser" Excelsiors, so that each batch of regular Excelsiors
featured only one or two of these special command ships.
>>Excelsiors would probably be mass built in the 2310s
>>(NCC-14000 or so) and 2340s (NCC-42000 or so), with plenty of life
>>left by the time of DS9 as well.
>In the case of Excelsior class vessels, I would have thought that
>limited production at least would have started before the turn of the
>century, but I'm sure we can agree to differ :)
I agree with limited production, but I also wish to label that as an
abortive production run, intended to churn out transwarp ships but
abandoned when transwarp failed. The result would be just three or
four hulls: the Excelsior, the Repulse, the Roosevelt (with known
2XXX-range registries) and the hull that was converted into the E-B.
More than that... I think it would have been beyond the capabilities
of 23rd century industry.
>>Oberths, OTOH, would probably have structural lives
>>of 160 years instead of 80 as a default.
>Possibly not. AFAIK Oberth class ships were long-range pathfinder and
>long-term science vessels. Some missions falling within those
>parameters would be quite stressful - close observation of stars or
>singularities, travelling extended distances etc etc. As a class, I
>wouldn't expect Oberth vessels to have an average life expectancy any
>higher than the norm.
I'm not sure if I can remember any long-range missions performed
by Oberths. Some observation missions would indeed be stressful,
but the majority would probably just be long stretches of time
with the engines on idle or off and a bunch of scientists clogging
up the onboard computers. The "supply ship" versions of Oberth
which are often seen ferrying personnel, spares and the like would
of course get fatigued faster. But an Oberth isn't a later-day Calypso
(that silly wooden boat went through an absurd amount of punishment
from Antarctica to Amazon) - it doesn't boldly go where no one
has gone before, or at least I've never heard of one going. Those
ships probably only travel along charted spacelanes.
>>>By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
>>>private hands or in foreign navies, and the only one in Starfleet is the
>>>one in the fleet museum (referred to in 'Relics').
>>The only UNREFITTED one, mind you. There could be a refitted one or
>>several somewhere (one was seen floating dead in space in "BoBW II",
>>after all).
>Possibly, although they definitely would be up for decommissioning by
>that time.
I guess even the ship in "BoBWII" could have been a well-preserved
museum specimen, reactivated for the battle next door from Earth...
Or a schoolship similar to the sailing vessels of today - not
an active training vessel for Starfleet crews as much as a basic
tool for familiarizing people with space travel.
Timo Saloniemi
David Buchner
> Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
> to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
> and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
>
> By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
> private hands or in foreign navies,....
And, oh am I itching to see one. All those Excelsior- and Miranda-class
ships in those big battle scenes, and not one single Constitution. Okay,
maybe they're too old or they all worked so hard they were in pieces by
the time they were done. But somewhere, somebody's got one they're just
cruising around and living in, or hauling freight with, or using as
their space station. I'm amazed that in all the years since the
beginning of TNG, we haven't ever had that scene where whichever captain
says, "on screen," and there it is. Well, except for that DS9 "Tribbles"
thing, which isn't the same...
--
David
buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA http://customer.wcta.net/buchner
GeneK
there's any onscreen precedent for a Starfleet vessel being passed
into non-Federation hands. If there are any left, refitted or
otherwise, they're probably either in museums or in some boneyard.
GeneK
Paul Cassidy
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1e4kf8s.1w3...@ppp217.wcta.net...
> E.Holton <E.R.J....@top-hat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
> > to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
> > and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
> >
> > By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
> > private hands or in foreign navies,....
>
> ships in those big battle scenes, and not one single Constitution. Okay,
> maybe they're too old or they all worked so hard they were in pieces by
> the time they were done. But somewhere, somebody's got one they're just
> cruising around and living in, or hauling freight with, or using as
> beginning of TNG, we haven't ever had that scene where whichever captain
> says, "on screen," and there it is. Well, except for that DS9 "Tribbles"
> thing, which isn't the same...
>
I heard a story a while back (I may have read it in the Nitpickers guide)
that says that originally the USS Stargazer was supposed to be a
Constitution class, but then the producers decided they wanted it to be a
different class of ship. Why I'm not sure.
However, by that time they decided, the scene had already been filmed with
Geordi (I think it was him) calling the Stargazer a "Constitution class".
They therefore dubbed it so that he is heard to say "Constellation" class.
However, if you watch his lips carefully, you can see he doesn't actually
say Constellation.
E.Holton
Timo S Saloniemi said...
>>some similarities to the Miranda class (Loknar class I think, although
>>it may have been another one). I think they may well have created some
>>back story for the Miranda being refitted from this postulated earlier
>>class much as the Enterprise received its refit. Unfortunately, I don't
>>have the relevant texts to hand (they're buried in a box somewhere) so I
>>can't say for sure.
>There are two principal "TOS Miranda" designs and back stories out there
>- a "Benning" class and a "Surya" class. The former is essentially the
>Reliant with all its components replaced by TOS ones
I think you are referring to different texts to the ones I've seen.
Still, interesting nonetheless.
>There are a couple of Excelsiors with registries in the 2XXX range, so
>either Starfleet jumped the gun and built those when the Excelsior
>was still undergoing testing, or then it built them immediately after
>she failed the tests and reverted to normal warp drive. In any case,
>I do think there were several Excelsior hulls in existence back in
>TUC - I just think they weren't very practical ships at the time,
>and weren't built in great numbers until the early 24th century.
Not practical in what way? Too big for the fleets requirements at the
time? Immature flight and operations systems requiring more frequent
maintenance layovers at starbases (note how often E-D malfunctioned
during its brief life)?
>>>, and Starfleet only built sister ships
>>>after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
>>Is that an aesthetic or operational objection to E-B? Aesthetic I can
>>understand (it's your taste, who am I to dictate?) whilst operationally,
>>it acquitted itself admirably considering the circumstances and the
>>condition it was in.
>It is an objection that *Starfleet* clearly had, since no ships of the
>E-B type were built again. Not until the Lakota, plus perhaps a few unseen
>vessels (but they would have to be few if they were unseen). Perhaps
>the extra impulse engines and whatnot were found to be superfluous
>after all. Perhaps Starfleet learned to pack all that more neatly
>inside the standard Excelsior hull.
In terms of the impulse engines, probably superfluous. Thinking back to
'Relics', I recall a point LaForge made along the lines that the design
of those hadn't changed much for a considerable period of time.
>Perhaps the E-B type was only
>built as a "command cruiser" to supplement the regular arsenal of
>"heavy cruiser" Excelsiors, so that each batch of regular Excelsiors
>featured only one or two of these special command ships.
I would be more inclined to think of it as being along those lines - the
E-B hullform being a limited production variant of the standard
Excelsior for some purpose, 'squadron leader' being one possibility.
Do you play Star Fleet Battles by any chance? That game use a similar
class distinction.
>>In the case of Excelsior class vessels, I would have thought that
>>limited production at least would have started before the turn of the
>>century, but I'm sure we can agree to differ :)
>I agree with limited production, but I also wish to label that as an
>abortive production run, intended to churn out transwarp ships but
>abandoned when transwarp failed. The result would be just three or
>four hulls: the Excelsior, the Repulse, the Roosevelt (with known
>2XXX-range registries) and the hull that was converted into the E-B.
>More than that... I think it would have been beyond the capabilities
>of 23rd century industry.
When I consider what can be built in what timescale today, the only
limit I can see on starting mass production of a class would be getting
the infrastructure in place for manufacture. Once Starfleet had decided
on acquiring more Excelsior class ships, and once the infrastructure was
in place (modifying existing facilities and building new ones),
production would likely have been quite brisk, even with 'mere' 23rd
Century industry!
>>>>By TNG era, the only Constitution class ships in space will either be in
>>>>private hands or in foreign navies, and the only one in Starfleet is the
>>>>one in the fleet museum (referred to in 'Relics').
>>>The only UNREFITTED one, mind you. There could be a refitted one or
>>>several somewhere (one was seen floating dead in space in "BoBW II",
>>>after all).
>>Possibly, although they definitely would be up for decommissioning by
>>that time.
>I guess even the ship in "BoBWII" could have been a well-preserved
>museum specimen, reactivated for the battle next door from Earth...
>Or a schoolship similar to the sailing vessels of today - not
>an active training vessel for Starfleet crews as much as a basic
>tool for familiarizing people with space travel.
Which is probably the most likely rationale for a refitted Constitution
class ship to still be in anything remotely resembling 'active' service
at that time.
E.Holton
>> Very probably, by that time, whenever a Constitution class ship was due
>> to come in for major repairs or refitting, it would be decommissioned
>> and either scrapped or demilitarised and sold off.
>And, oh am I itching to see one. All those Excelsior- and Miranda-class
>ships in those big battle scenes, and not one single Constitution. Okay,
>maybe they're too old or they all worked so hard they were in pieces by
>the time they were done. But somewhere, somebody's got one they're just
>cruising around and living in, or hauling freight with, or using as
>their space station. I'm amazed that in all the years since the
>beginning of TNG, we haven't ever had that scene where whichever captain
>says, "on screen," and there it is. Well, except for that DS9 "Tribbles"
>thing, which isn't the same...
A crying shame, I agree.
Even though it was in the 'past', it was still a wonderful sight to see
E-nil in all it's CGI glory in that DS9 episode.
GeneK
Timo S Saloniemi
>>The Excelsior in TUC didn't convince me of active production - she
>>was still receiving refits (the impulse engines) and probably testing
>>possibilities. The building of the E-B to altered specs would seem to
>>confirm that the design was still in flux. The Excelsior was probably
>>put in regular service despite being a "failure" (in her original
>>intended role of transwarp ship), and Starfleet only built sister ships
>>after the E-B had shown how NOT to do it.
>
>at least one more such ship built, the Lakota.
One successor spells "failure" in my books, when the majority of
Excelsiors (nearly a hundred ships seen so far, mostly thanks to the
improved FX techniques in DS9) is of a different configuration (either
the STIII version of the original Excelsior, or the STVI version).
Clearly there was something undesirable about the E-B as compared
with the other two designs. Perhaps it was just the extra cost or
complexity - perhaps the ship was too good to be economically viable?
>The only faults of the E-B that we know of were caused by some
>shortsightedness among the engineers (I mean, would you let out a
>ship with no tractor beams, photon torpedoes or medical staff?)
Why, of course I would - the ship wasn't supposed to be in active
duty or anything. I simply would choose a captain who, when called
to rescue somebody, would have the guts to say "Nope, can't do it,
tried all I could" instead of letting some retired hero buffoon
him into endangering the whole ship. Had Harriman refused to go
in, surely Starfleet courts would have freed him of all charges of
neglect - by refusing, he'd potentially have saved the lives of
the E-B contingent even though the El-Aurians would have been
killed (or "killed").
>And /why/ was the E-B the only ship within range of the
>Lakul et al anyway - surely there was at least /one/ other operational
>starship in the Sol system?
The only explanation I can think of is that Starfleet is forbidden from
patrolling inhabited star systems at all, in order to make it more
difficult for it to practice "gunboat diplomacy". Only ships coming in
to dock, swap crews, perform repairs, are allowed to spend any time
in the vicinity of UFP member worlds. Such an arrangement would be no
less sensible than various historical defence arrangements; say, the
old US system of state militias that would refuse to fight for the
nation as a whole, or the current limitations on National Guard use.
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
>
> One successor spells "failure" in my books, when the majority of
> Excelsiors (nearly a hundred ships seen so far, mostly thanks to the
> improved FX techniques in DS9) is of a different configuration (either
> the STIII version of the original Excelsior, or the STVI version).
> Clearly there was something undesirable about the E-B as compared
> with the other two designs. Perhaps it was just the extra cost or
> complexity - perhaps the ship was too good to be economically viable?
Or maybe they just didn't need to be able to blow open the
hulls of any of the later ships to expel famous Starfleet
heroes into space...
> The only explanation I can think of is that Starfleet is forbidden from
> patrolling inhabited star systems at all, in order to make it more
> difficult for it to practice "gunboat diplomacy". Only ships coming in
> to dock, swap crews, perform repairs, are allowed to spend any time
> in the vicinity of UFP member worlds. Such an arrangement would be no
> less sensible than various historical defence arrangements; say, the
> old US system of state militias that would refuse to fight for the
> nation as a whole, or the current limitations on National Guard use.
Oh great, no "Coast Guard" with a search and rescue capability. Remind
me not to visit 23rd century Earth on my next vacation...
GeneK
Timo S Saloniemi
>Previously in discussion "Can they still use the Constitution class?",
>Timo S Saloniemi said...
>>There are a couple of Excelsiors with registries in the 2XXX range, so
>>either Starfleet jumped the gun and built those when the Excelsior
>>was still undergoing testing, or then it built them immediately after
>>she failed the tests and reverted to normal warp drive. In any case,
>>I do think there were several Excelsior hulls in existence back in
>>TUC - I just think they weren't very practical ships at the time,
>>and weren't built in great numbers until the early 24th century.
>
>Not practical in what way? Too big for the fleets requirements at the
>time? Immature flight and operations systems requiring more frequent
>maintenance layovers at starbases (note how often E-D malfunctioned
>during its brief life)?
I suspect optimized for transwarp, and too darned big. When transwarp
machinery was removed, vast cavities were left in inconvenient
places; too much power was available in places, too less in others.
That sort of thing. Surely Starfleet would have tested transwarp
drive on a smaller, older vessel if that were possible - but
apparently it wasn't, since supposedly transwarp was a complete
no-go and Starfleet didn't realize that until after building the
Excelsior. It all implies that a big ship was needed to accomplish
even the first transwarp tests - and when those tests failed, the
big size became just a liability.
Of course, there's nothing wring with big size if you can afford it,.
Later on, lots of useful stuff was probably fitted inside the cavities
left by transwarp, and Starfleet was very happy to have designed a
hull form that could accommodate all that gear. By the time of
the Excelsior tests, though, Starfleet probably was more geared towards
building Constitution- and Constellation-sized ships and less prepared
to mass-produce the Excelsiors after their original raison d'etre had
evaporated.
>>>Is that an aesthetic or operational objection to E-B?
>>It is an objection that *Starfleet* clearly had, since no ships of the
>>E-B type were built again. Not until the Lakota, plus perhaps a few unseen
>>vessels..
>
>In terms of the impulse engines, probably superfluous. Thinking back to
>'Relics', I recall a point LaForge made along the lines that the design
>of those hadn't changed much for a considerable period of time.
Not since the Romulan wars, actually. Fine-tuning may have taken place,
though. Perhaps the original Excelsior was under-engined because transwarp
drive was supposed to take care of impulse movement as well? The E-B
tried to remedy that by adding engines, while later refinements managed
to simply increase the power of the existing engines to match the bulk
of the ship.
>>Perhaps the E-B type was only
>>built as a "command cruiser" to supplement the regular arsenal of
>>"heavy cruiser" Excelsiors, so that each batch of regular Excelsiors
>>featured only one or two of these special command ships.
>I would be more inclined to think of it as being along those lines - the
>E-B hullform being a limited production variant of the standard
>Excelsior for some purpose, 'squadron leader' being one possibility.
The extended hull might hint at extended special facilities (like C3I
gear). Or then at extended fuel and extended range, in which case
the E-B could be a special deep-space exploration variant. Somehow
I like the command cruiser idea more (although the initial E-B need not
have been a command cruiser initially - she could have been a simple
test of what could be done with the Excelsior design, or then a purpose-
built deep-space explorer that was soon superceded by other types
but proved useful in command duties).
>Do you play Star Fleet Battles by any chance? That game use a similar
>class distinction.
I've read old SFB material from the era when it was just a RPG (pre-
photocopy stuff!), and I do think the game has potential. Command
cruisers are hardly unique to the game, though.
>When I consider what can be built in what timescale today, the only
>limit I can see on starting mass production of a class would be getting
>the infrastructure in place for manufacture. Once Starfleet had decided
>on acquiring more Excelsior class ships, and once the infrastructure was
>in place (modifying existing facilities and building new ones),
>production would likely have been quite brisk, even with 'mere' 23rd
>Century industry!
Unless, of course, starship construction features some extra bottlenecks.
Perhaps the ships aren't made of future "steel" but of future "titanium"
(not steel and titanium, of course, but substances with similar relative
costs and manufacturing difficulties), so that construction is actually
very difficult and the finishing of one ship in 2285 is the same as
finishing ten cruisers or two-three carriers today.
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
threads that Starfleet must have turned out a helluva lotta Miranda
and similar ships, considering how many of them seemed to be available
for use as cannon fodder in DS9, I wonder if the post-TMP years weren't
like present times, where most countries' shipbuilding yards couldn't
turn out a Missouri or Bismarck sized ship without a major reorganization
because all their contracts for the past 20-40 have been for smaller ships.
GeneK
GeneK
be able to build something that big right now... aren't they
the ones turning out most of those monster tankers and
container ships?
GeneK
JTKirk wrote:
>
>
> Man, how could you NOT mention the Yamato! (the biggest battleship there
> ever was)
JTKirk
>I wonder if they could even do that. Some have speculated in other
>threads that Starfleet must have turned out a helluva lotta Miranda
>and similar ships, considering how many of them seemed to be available
>for use as cannon fodder in DS9, I wonder if the post-TMP years weren't
>like present times, where most countries' shipbuilding yards couldn't
>turn out a Missouri or Bismarck sized ship
Man, how could you NOT mention the Yamato! (the biggest battleship there
ever was)
> without a major reorganization
>because all their contracts for the past 20-40 have been for smaller ships.
>
>GeneK
>
>
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>>
>> By the time of
>> the Excelsior tests, though, Starfleet probably was more geared towards
>> building Constitution- and Constellation-sized ships and less prepared
>> to mass-produce the Excelsiors after their original raison d'etre had
>> evaporated.
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' mailto:mch...@li.urp.edu.pe,
_H__/_/ jtk...@usa.net,JTK...@HoTMaiL.com
'-_____|( http://www.GeoCities.com/Hollywood/2645
remove the "no_me_j." in front of the address when replying
Dwayne Allen Day
: I think that Japan's shipbuilding yards actually might still
: be able to build something that big right now... aren't they
: the ones turning out most of those monster tankers and
: container ships?
A lot of that work went to Korea. It may have gone elsewhere by now
(India?) for cheap labor.
However, sheer size of the yard is not necessarily a determining factor.
What is also important is the skill of the workforce. Warships require
much more skill than tankers. (And there are other factors as well--many
large commercial ships are produced in sections that are then connected.
Aircraft carriers are not--and probably cannot be--produced this way,
although some large warships are. So a shipyard capable of producing
large tankers might not be able to produce an aircraft carrier because it
might not have the right equipment for the drydock, etc.)
DDAY
Eric Knops
<E.R.J....@top-hat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not practical in what way? Too big for the fleets requirements at the
>time? Immature flight and operations systems requiring more frequent
>maintenance layovers at starbases (note how often E-D malfunctioned
>during its brief life)?
It could have been like the B2 -- too ahead of its time to be
affordably mass produced. Perhaps a single Excelsior cost a hundred
times that of a Miranda. Perhaps Starfleet put its limited resources
into other priorities during the 23rd century, and then a change in
priorities brought it into full production in the 24th century?
The E-B variant could have been an attempt by a faction in Starfleet
to justify the cost of the hullform. They added more bells and
whistles, but built fewer ships.
>Do you play Star Fleet Battles by any chance? That game use a similar
>class distinction.
Is that a good game? I always liked designing starships in Master of
Orion 2.
>When I consider what can be built in what timescale today, the only
>limit I can see on starting mass production of a class would be getting
>the infrastructure in place for manufacture. Once Starfleet had decided
>on acquiring more Excelsior class ships, and once the infrastructure was
>in place (modifying existing facilities and building new ones),
>production would likely have been quite brisk, even with 'mere' 23rd
>Century industry!
Never leave out the political element. Why is the F-22 in danger of
cancellation? It's not just manufacturing facilities that limit what
gets made, it's what Starfleet and the Federation feel is important
during any given era.
Maybe peace with the Klingons made Starfleet reconsider the need for a
heavy battlewagon in the 23rd century timeframe.
Martin Evans
"Calypso" used to be a minelayer for instance and some group almost
bought an old aircraft carrier that they wanted to turn into a museum.
Heck, a Russian submarine was sold on Ebay a couple of months ago.
"And we all say: Oh!
Well I Never!
Was there ever
A Cat so clever
As Magical Mr. Mistoffelees!"
---T.S. Elliot, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" ( 1939 )
Dwayne Allen Day
: Some naval vessels do end up in private hands. Jacques Cousteau's
: "Calypso" used to be a minelayer for instance and some group almost
Lots and lots of military freighters (mostly Liberty ships) ended up in
private hands. They were cheap to buy, expensive to operate.
: bought an old aircraft carrier that they wanted to turn into a museum.
There are a ton of old warships in the hands of private museum
organizations. All have been demilitarized.
: Heck, a Russian submarine was sold on Ebay a couple of months ago.
There are several Russian submarines in private hands. One is down in
Florida. I think there's one in Australia and I think another in Finland.
These are usually in "private" hands, owned by an individual rather than
an organization, but they've been demilitarized. No navy will sell
militarized ships to individuals.
DDAY
Admiral Korel
I can see it now. "One copy of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical
Manual, $14.99. One submarine, Russian, $2.99."
>There are several Russian submarines in private hands. One is down in
>Florida. I think there's one in Australia and I think another in Finland.
>These are usually in "private" hands, owned by an individual rather than
>an organization, but they've been demilitarized. No navy will sell
>militarized ships to individuals.
Blast! There goes my fiendish scheme... (Fiendish scheme #1412, that is...)
nitf...@my-deja.com
We have 12 Constitutions initially built to go off and explore. One
came back without being destroyed or heavily damaged. The public feels
pretty safe, what with the Organian treaty and all, although the
reemergence of the Romulans is a little troubling, as is that new Gorn
race that we found. Tholians are being a little twitchy as well.
Starfleet seizes on the new hero and his ship to reinvigorate
themselves, and their budgets. The Enterprise is refurbished, and
Starfleet uses it to test many of the components of the Miranda class,
which is on the drawing boards as a cheaper, more compact exploration
cruiser. V'Ger comes along and scares the heck out of everyone, while
bringing Starfleet and it's hero captain back into the limelight.
Starfleet takes advantage of this fear, and starts cranking out
Mirandas to flesh out the fleet, as well as building a few Constitution
refits to act as the fleet's big guns. In addition, The Excelsior
class is started, both as a test bed as well as a probable successor to
the refit Constitutions. By ST:IV the transwarp experiment is a
failure, but the Excelsior, especially with all of the room freed up by
the removal of transwarp components, is the obvious replacement for the
Constitutions. In fact, one of the new Constitutions is passed off to
Kirk to reward him, as well as provide some decent PR. Sulu shows that
the Excelsior is a worthy design, and the Constitutions are phased out
in favor of the Excelsiors to handle the more potentially combat
oriented assignements (i.e., Sulu charting gaseous anomolies near the
Klingon border) and the future Constellations for the "safer", more
long distance exploratory roles. Mirandas are kept around for decades
due to their fair performance and cheap cost, although the inards are
drastically updated over time.
<3883EB21.17867865@genek_hates_spammers.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
GeneK
obviously the sequence of which class got designed first and
to test which other classes could go any number of ways.
Keep in mind, of course, that *none* of GR's TMP backstory
made it onto the screen, so *all* this is is theorization...
no "canonicity" whatsoever :)
GeneK
Joshua Bell
news:86n28m$c7q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> The Enterprise is refurbished, and
> Starfleet uses it to test many of the components of the Miranda class,
> which is on the drawing boards as a cheaper, more compact exploration
> cruiser.
I haven't seen anyone else mention one sticking point in the above
(nifty) scheme, so I feel I need to.
The Soyuz-class (Miranda, hold the rollbar and mayo, extra pickles and
pylons) was retired in 2288. Assuming the Enterprise refit was test-bed
for the new technology, and it returned from its mission in 2270 or so,
that means a class of ships was designed around the new technology and
entirely retired within 18 years.
Lots of speculation can patch this up - Soyuz were lemons, or Soyuz were
TOS-era craft that were later refit into what we saw in TNG "Cause and
Effect" and spawned the whole Miranda lineage, or the Bozeman was a
special case, or ... Alas, it's all kinda icky.
Joshua
GeneK
being introduced prior to the E-refit and some of its parts
being retrofitted to the E. The E-nil was supposedly in
refit for about two years, and that seemed a rather short
time for an entire design/test/deploy cycle. Also, if you're
working within GR's backstory, if the E-refit was done with
an eye toward providing positive PR for Starfleet, the last
thing they'd want to do is use untested designs on it that
could *fail* and leave them with egg on their faces. Now,
if the *Soyuz* was the "testbed" for designs used on the
Miranda and the Constitution refit...
GeneK
Dwayne Allen Day
: Effect" and spawned the whole Miranda lineage, or the Bozeman was a
: special case, or ... Alas, it's all kinda icky.
The Bozeman was kinda icky--stuff sticking out everywhere. Yuck.
DDAY
Timo S Saloniemi
>So, maybe to tie it all together;
>
>We have 12 Constitutions initially built to go off and explore.
Or then many, many more so that 12 to 13 survive until "Tomorrow
is Yesterday" even though some five ships are lost during the three
years of TOS alone. (One was later found and recovered more or less
intact, though...)
>One came back without being destroyed or heavily damaged.
...Which would suggest that there were at least seven years between
TOS and the return of this one, so that the remaining 11-12 could
be destroyed at the established rate...
>The public feels pretty safe, what with the Organian treaty and all,
>although the reemergence of the Romulans is a little troubling, as is
>that new Gorn race that we found. Tholians are being a little twitchy
>as well.
Not to mention the Klingons, who did most of their nasty tricks
AFTER their initial public appearance and the establishing of the
Organian treaty. And would you feel safe if your nation's navy was
destroyed down to the second-last capital ship?
Agreed in principle with the rest of the text, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
><nitf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:86n28m$c7q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> The Enterprise is refurbished, and
>> Starfleet uses it to test many of the components of the Miranda class,
>> which is on the drawing boards as a cheaper, more compact exploration
>> cruiser.
>
>(nifty) scheme, so I feel I need to.
>
>The Soyuz-class (Miranda, hold the rollbar and mayo, extra pickles and
>pylons) was retired in 2288. Assuming the Enterprise refit was test-bed
>for the new technology, and it returned from its mission in 2270 or so,
>that means a class of ships was designed around the new technology and
>entirely retired within 18 years.
>
>Lots of speculation can patch this up - Soyuz were lemons, or Soyuz were
>TOS-era craft that were later refit into what we saw in TNG "Cause and
>special case, or ... Alas, it's all kinda icky.
Generally, I'd like to think of Starfleet as a continuum. It would be
rather silly if the "hero ships" were the only thing running the
organization, and all other designs were derivatives and of lesser
worth or historical scope. Sure, refitting of the E-nil was a big
deal for the Enterprise herself, but I wouldn't want to think of it
as a big deal in the greater scheme of things. Instead, I'd assume
that half a dozen other Constitutions were in various stages of
such refitting (or other types of refitting), or planning thereof,
a the time of TMP; and that other ship classes were in this stage of
their life cycle as well, while yet other classes were ending or
beginning their careers, or in regular service.
Miranda is one thing that warrants a healthy dose of history and
background, given how it is seen frequently and in many variants.
IMHO it's more fertile ground for speculation than even the
Constitutions. I'd love to have it precede its first appearance (as
the Reliant) by several decades at least, either as shown or
if possible in a TOS-style guise.
Timo Saloniemi
nitf...@my-deja.com
> >>
> >> The Enterprise is refurbished, and
> >> Starfleet uses it to test many of the components of the Miranda
class,
> >> which is on the drawing boards as a cheaper, more compact
exploration
> >> cruiser.
> >
> >I haven't seen anyone else mention one sticking point in the above
> >(nifty) scheme, so I feel I need to.
> >
> >The Soyuz-class (Miranda, hold the rollbar and mayo, extra pickles
and
> >pylons) was retired in 2288. Assuming the Enterprise refit was test-
bed
> >for the new technology, and it returned from its mission in 2270 or
so,
> >that means a class of ships was designed around the new technology
and
> >entirely retired within 18 years.
> >
> >Lots of speculation can patch this up - Soyuz were lemons, or Soyuz
were
> >TOS-era craft that were later refit into what we saw in TNG "Cause
and
> >Effect" and spawned the whole Miranda lineage, or the Bozeman was a
> >special case, or ... Alas, it's all kinda icky.
>
I rather like the idea that the Soyuz were an attempt to expand the
capabilities of the Mirandas that worked well enough at the time, but
were quickly outpaces by the much more capable Excelsiors and such. In
that environment, they provided a good stop-gap solution, but once the
gap was filled. . .
> Generally, I'd like to think of Starfleet as a continuum. It would be
> rather silly if the "hero ships" were the only thing running the
> organization, and all other designs were derivatives and of lesser
> worth or historical scope. Sure, refitting of the E-nil was a big
> deal for the Enterprise herself, but I wouldn't want to think of it
> as a big deal in the greater scheme of things.
Except for the influence on public opinion and probably resultant
increases in budgets. If we base the idea on what Gene R. wrote, then
perhaps the public opinion was so complacent that the idea of spending
credits to expand the fleet was a hard sell. The prevailing opinion
might have been to consolidate what they had, rather than expand their
boundries. Hence, Mirandas were on the drawing board, being more than
good enough to patrol/explore all of the new area the Federation had
grwon into. A pure, long range, heavily armed and capable explorer
would have been impossible to justify in that political climate. So
dreams like the Excelsiors and Constellations were a no-go.
Then, enter the Enterprise. Public opinion is willing to reward it,
and Starfleet, for what it accomplished. Starfleet seizes on this to
try their Miranda designs out (or use existing parts if the Mirandas
have already started building), besides, the tooling and parts are
there, so it's a much easier deal to refit the E with already existing
designs, while also allowing Starfleet to gear up to produce Mirandas.
E gets commissioned, V;Ger comes up, along with the new, scary
K'Tingas. Public opinion wants their butts safe, hence large numbers
of Mirandas start pouring out. A few Constituion refits come out, but
since the public still doesn't expand spreading the borders, they hang
around as training ships and "fire"-fighters, rather than risking them
in the great beyond. The Excelsior is sold as a test-bed for
transwarp, but c'mon. It's such a good design that it's easily
brought back as a conventional ship in a couple of years with no
external refinements, and is so good and refittable that it's in use
almost a century later. My gut says that the Excelsior was the purpose-
designed successor to the Constitutions, and Starfleet used the excuse
of the the transwarp tests to build an entirely new spaceframe. You
don't build a ship that good and that well armed and defended as an
engine test-bed. Also, we still see the Excelsior, probably the most
capable ship in the fleet, patrolling known space along the Klingon
border in ST:TUC. This suggests Starfleet still isn't going to far out
of it's own yard. Then Praxis explodes, the Klingon threat drops
dramatically, and the public stops being scared and starts being
adventuresome again. Now the Constellations, Excelsiors and such start
flying out, and the Ambassadors start on the drawing board. Starfleet
stops being militarily focussed and starts being explorers again,
culminating in the Galaxies.
Things like the Soyuz I see as limited mods to use an existing
spaceframe to fill in the gaps in the fleet. Once the Excelsiors and
Constellations started pouring out, who wants to spend big bucks
sprucing up a more limited spaceframe to do what these new designs
already do?
> that half a dozen other Constitutions were in various stages of
> such refitting (or other types of refitting), or planning thereof,
> a the time of TMP; and that other ship classes were in this stage of
> their life cycle as well, while yet other classes were ending or
> beginning their careers, or in regular service.
>
> Miranda is one thing that warrants a healthy dose of history and
> background, given how it is seen frequently and in many variants.
> IMHO it's more fertile ground for speculation than even the
> Constitutions. I'd love to have it precede its first appearance (as
> the Reliant) by several decades at least, either as shown or
> if possible in a TOS-style guise.
Only problem, a Miranda predecessor (say, an Anton) would probably have
constituted a true starship, and Kirk should have taken them into
account when he said there were only 12 like the E. Obviously, that
can go any way you want, and is certainly not definitive.
Dwayne Allen Day
: increases in budgets. If we base the idea on what Gene R. wrote, then
: perhaps the public opinion was so complacent that the idea of spending
: credits to expand the fleet was a hard sell.
Ah, but if we accept the silly notion that there is no such thing as money
in the ST universe, then there's no "credits" to expend and Starfleet can
build all the ships it wants without it affecting anybody...
DDAY
(being sarcastic or witty, take your pick)
GeneK
maybe it's energy for replication, runtime for robotic manufacturing, etc.
Maybe it's a question of how many starships can be built before everybody's
weekly transporter credits have to be cut back, or the lead time for obtaining
a new home replicator gets stretched out too long because manufacturing
capacity has been devoted to turning out hull sections.
GeneK
GeneK
commerce happening in Trek, but suppose for a moment there was no money
and no employment because all the resources are automated, but all of
the resources were communally or "publicly" owned. You can't create new
factories or power sources on an unlimited basis, especially if people
still don't want to go to work to build them, so you have to decide how
best to use the ones you've got. In a democracy (I'm fairly sure we'd
all agree that even if future Earth has a communal noneconomy it's not
the totalitarian type, right?), if the majority decides to build 12 more
starships, even though it means cutting everybody's replicator energy
allowance by 5%, it happens. Now, I imagine there might be some bartering
of energy units going on, but what exactly would you trade your excess for
in a noneconomy where everything comes from automated factories? An extra
pair of last year's robotically manufactured shoes? And if you were an
ambitious person who was willing to go to work to build a privately owned
power station, what would you accept as payment for the energy you
generated?
GeneK
Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
>
> All of which brings us right back to square one--"money" is just a common
> way of trading different resources. It represents frozen labor. There is
> no way to get around the fact that you cannot get something for free.
> Trek's idea that in the future there is no such thing as "money" is simply
> stupid.
Dwayne Allen Day
: Try "resources" instead of "credits." If it's not a question of currency,
: maybe it's energy for replication, runtime for robotic manufacturing, etc.
: Maybe it's a question of how many starships can be built before everybody's
All of which brings us right back to square one--"money" is just a common
way of trading different resources. It represents frozen labor. There is
no way to get around the fact that you cannot get something for free.
Trek's idea that in the future there is no such thing as "money" is simply
stupid.
DDAY
Michael Hafer
>commerce happening in Trek, but suppose for a moment there was no money
>and no employment because all the resources are automated, but all of
>the resources were communally or "publicly" owned. You can't create new
>factories or power sources on an unlimited basis, especially if people
>still don't want to go to work to build them, so you have to decide how
>best to use the ones you've got. In a democracy (I'm fairly sure we'd
>all agree that even if future Earth has a communal noneconomy it's not
>the totalitarian type, right?), if the majority decides to build 12 more
>starships, even though it means cutting everybody's replicator energy
>allowance by 5%, it happens. Now, I imagine there might be some bartering
>of energy units going on, but what exactly would you trade your excess for
>in a noneconomy where everything comes from automated factories? An extra
>pair of last year's robotically manufactured shoes? And if you were an
>ambitious person who was willing to go to work to build a privately owned
>power station, what would you accept as payment for the energy you
>generated?
>
>GeneK
>
And Federation Credits were actually MENTIONED on a few DS9 episodes if I
recall!!
>
>Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
>>
>> All of which brings us right back to square one--"money" is just a common
>> way of trading different resources. It represents frozen labor. There is
>> no way to get around the fact that you cannot get something for free.
>> Trek's idea that in the future there is no such thing as "money" is simply
>> stupid.
Michael Hafer
Admiral Korel
>way of trading different resources. It represents frozen labor. There is
>no way to get around the fact that you cannot get something for free.
>Trek's idea that in the future there is no such thing as "money" is simply
>stupid.
The theory to which I subscribe, voiced by someone on this NG a while back,
is that money is used, but only for things that can't be replicated; and
that for the majority of things, you are simply given a limit on how much
you can replicate per month. There was a whole, long post on the subject,
which I'll quote if anyone wants me to. Basically, it works out to a way
that money has taken much more of a back seat.
Andrew Wright
>
Todd Guenther's TOS-style Miranda is really nifty. Have you seen "Ships
of the Star Fleet"?
Andrew Wright
money
> in the ST universe, then there's no "credits" to expend and Starfleet
can
> build all the ships it wants without it affecting anybody...
>
Credits or no credits, building ships still takes resources.
Dwayne Allen Day
: > Ah, but if we accept the silly notion that there is no such thing as
: money
: > in the ST universe, then there's no "credits" to expend and Starfleet
: can
: > build all the ships it wants without it affecting anybody...
: Credits or no credits, building ships still takes resources.
Right. Xactly. This simply points out the fact that nothing is free--a
decision to do one thing means that you cannot do something else. And
because barter systems (i.e. trading goods and resources) are incredibly
inefficient, cumbersome and downright dumb, we have money instead. So a
decision to build more starshis means that something else has to be given
up--hence, it "costs" you.
DDAY