Sovereign class ship Vs. Excelsior?
Drums1979
>Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering hulls look so mu=
>ch alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E could be mistaken for an=
> Excelsior class ship. Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and 21=
>3 of The Art of Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the Soverei=
>gn class design. one is a concept sketch for a new Excelsior, the other is =
>a random ship docked at a starbase.
>
Nope...the Spacedock shot shows the Excelsior.
*********************************************
Michael Hafer - Drums1979 - In Fort Wayne, IN
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8343/BOP.html">A Good Band Page with
sound files ~§:o)</A>
Richard Hopkins
Ben Fitzpatrick wrote in message
<102675251...@collegiate.pvt.k12.ky.us>...
>Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering
> hulls look so much alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E
> could be mistaken for an Excelsior class ship.
I'd recommend getting thicker glasses. The similarity is not that close,
bar the obvious family lineage. There is a rough similarity in side profile,
but from any other angle there is a huge difference in proportion and
general shape.
>Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and 213 of The
>Art of Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the
>Sovereign class design. one is a concept sketch for a new
>Excelsior, the other is a random ship docked at a starbase.
Again, they ain't that close, unless viewed from a few feet away. BTW,
the ship on the docking pylon *is* the Excelsior...
BTW - please don't use HTML encoding in discussion groups unless (like
Microsoft groups) they specifically welcome them...
Richard Hopkins
(Replace .nospam with .com in auto-reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Now here's one for the spammers: tony...@labor.org.uk
Lotus IV
> BTW - please don't use HTML encoding in discussion groups unless (like
>Microsoft groups) they specifically welcome them...
I agree, but many of us can't help it, so it isn't worth the trouble to change
it. Binaries. Those I don't like in text groups.
Timo S Saloniemi
In article <102675251...@collegiate.pvt.k12.ky.us> Ben_Fit...@collegiate.pvt.k12.ky.us (Ben Fitzpatrick) writes:
>Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering hulls look so mu=
>ch alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E could be mistaken for an=
> Excelsior class ship.
Well, perhaps the Sovereign is a successor design to the Excelsior? It
might be that there is some kind of patented, well-working configuration
that requires long nacelles and the type of aft hull undercut common to
the Excelsior and the Sovereign, just as there seems to be a successful
configuration for shorter nacelles mounted underneath and aft of a saucer
(Miranda, Nebula, Akira, USS Centaur). Each starship generation would
then include at least one ship class built to this configuration, but with
the latest in engine, hull and weapons design.
>Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and 213 of The Art of
>Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the Sovereign class
>design. one is a concept sketch for a new Excelsior, the other is a
>random ship docked at a starbase.
I remember the Excelsior study models (both of which, BTW, were seen
in TNG "Best of Both Worlds", at a distance). I don't recall the
random ship at starbase, though - but there is another interesting
sketch of a long-nacelle ship in "The Making of ST:DS9", with
many motifs common with the Sovereign. I guess elongated hulls and
engines look sleek to every starship designer...
Timo Saloniemi
Athman Boukhaoua
Ben Fitzpatrick schrieb:
>
> Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering hulls look so much alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E could be mistaken for an Excelsior class ship. Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and 213 of The Art of Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the Sovereign class design. one is a concept sketch for a new Excelsior, the other is a random ship docked at a starbase.
IMO, the Souvereign class is one of the worst ship (in terms of design)
in the whole Star Trek history.
It heavily borrows from the Intrepid, the Excelsior and the Galaxy class
without adding any new features (Like they did it with the Nebula, Defiant
or the Akira class)
The 'All good things' Galaxy refit was so cool and now the Federation has
such a boring ship as their flagship. No wonder there were very few externals
in First Contact.
_______________________ ____________________________________
__/ \_/ if (Reader.Type != SPAMMER) \
/ Athman Boukhaoua | Remove ".ANTISPAM"; |
| ab.AN...@active.ch \ else |
\ ICQ # 6204641 \________ goto HELL; |
/ \___________________________/
| VGAP code: L++ T+ G CT+ D+ R+++ ________/ \
|__________________________________________________/ |
| "Oh my God...the dead have risen |
| and they're voting Republican." |
| - Bart Simpson |
Drums1979
I think the Sovereign is the coolest design yet.
Timothy Schenks
>IMO, the Souvereign class is one of the worst ship (in terms of design)
>in the whole Star Trek history.
>It heavily borrows from the Intrepid, the Excelsior and the Galaxy
class
>without adding any new features (Like they did it with the Nebula,
Defiant
>or the Akira class)
>The 'All good things' Galaxy refit was so cool and now the Federation
has
>such a boring ship as their flagship. No wonder there were very few
externals
>in First Contact.
I agree. I think the Sovereign is a very ugly ship.
mco...@earthlink.net
therre's no way that the Sovereign is the successor to the Excelsior. I
mean the excelsior class has been in service for nearly a century and
you see them everywhere on the trek shows. They got to be the most
sucessfull design in starfleet history. It's been over two years since
FC, and in the movie, that ship had been in service for over a year, but
I haven't seen a single sovereign class since. It's pretty accepted
canon that at most two sovereign class ships were ever built, in fact
the Enterprise-e might just be the USS sovereign but got it's name
changed.
I presume maybe that ship is the white elephant of stafleet, maybe too
expensive and\or had overpowering problems ala defiant, and the program
got cancelled.
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> In article <102675251...@collegiate.pvt.k12.ky.us> Ben_Fit...@collegiate.pvt.k12.ky.us (Ben Fitzpatrick) writes:
> >Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering hulls look so mu=
> >ch alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E could be mistaken for an=
> > Excelsior class ship.
>
> Well, perhaps the Sovereign is a successor design to the Excelsior? It
> might be that there is some kind of patented, well-working configuration
> that requires long nacelles and the type of aft hull undercut common to
> the Excelsior and the Sovereign, just as there seems to be a successful
> configuration for shorter nacelles mounted underneath and aft of a saucer
> (Miranda, Nebula, Akira, USS Centaur). Each starship generation would
> then include at least one ship class built to this configuration, but with
> the latest in engine, hull and weapons design.
>
> >Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and 213 of The Art of
> >Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the Sovereign class
> >design. one is a concept sketch for a new Excelsior, the other is a
> >random ship docked at a starbase.
>
Nopel
mco...@earthlink.net heeft geschreven in bericht
<3512C4...@earthlink.net>...
>therre's no way that the Sovereign is the successor to the Excelsior. I
>mean the excelsior class has been in service for nearly a century and
>you see them everywhere on the trek shows. They got to be the most
>sucessfull design in starfleet history. It's been over two years since
>FC, and in the movie, that ship had been in service for over a year, but
>I haven't seen a single sovereign class since. It's pretty accepted
>canon that at most two sovereign class ships were ever built, in fact
>the Enterprise-e might just be the USS sovereign but got it's name
>changed.
>
And maybe the Defiant used to be the Valiant, but got recalled, so
that's why it's a Valiant-class ship!
Nopel, ducking.
P.S. I know! I know! I'm kidding. Please don't start a new Valiant/Defiant
thread :-).
Seriously, though. Personally I don't think they'd rename a class-ship
without renaming the class itself as well. But what would happen if a
class-ship gets renamed when there are already other ships of that class?
Suppose when the Enterprise (NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C or D [or E])
was destroyed, they had to rechristen the U.S.S. Constitution (if it
was still in service) instead of, as is generally accepted, the
Yorktown. I can't believe they'd rename the class to Enterprise Class,
but on the other hand, if they renamed the Sovereign to Enterprise,
I can't believe they'd let the Sovereign Class name stand. Not if the
Enterprise is the only class ship.
Any thoughts?
Nopel, getting up again. :)
mco...@earthlink.net
I always wondered if maybe the Defiant and Sovereign classes are the
24th century equivilants to the stealth fighter and bomber.
Defiant is a quickie prototype cranked out to testbed new weapons and
shield tech. Expensive but not too expensive allowing more to be
eventualy constructed.
Sovereign class would be like the B-2 bomber. Years of post wolf 369
research and development, technology prototyped on defiant upgraded and
supersophisticated so you wind up with a superstarship more powererfull
and advanced than ever, but so ridiculously expensive, like a trillion
fed credits per ship or something, the program gets killed so there are
only a couple of ships ever built.
FC fans might like this. If Enterprise-E is the one and only
prototype of a starship class that was never mass produced because of
price, the ship would stand as the best of the best in the fleet, and
uniquely one of a kind, and outmatching anything in the quadrant for at
least several trek sequels to come. The enterprise-d may have been the
flagship of the fleet, but since there was an entire squadron of similar
ships, it didn't stand out in any way but in the excellence of it's
crew.
LaGrange Remainder
I have never particularly cared for the overuse of glowing features on
the nacelles, etc. Looks too much like a toy. I especially dislike the
orange bussard thingies. This is especially true of Enterprise -E-; the
engine pylons and nacelles should have been more like Voyager.
Just an Engineer
Lotus IV
>I think the Sovereign is the coolest design yet.
why does the asylum let you use the computer? You could hurt yourself.
Lotus IV
>No, then the class name would have to change as well. The Enterprise-E
>might well have been another ship which had its name changed, but this
>can't be the Sovereign. If it were, there'd be an Enterprise class.
>Change the name of the class ship and you change the name of the class.
No, they would want a big flagship, and I think they wouldn't want an
enterprise class, so if the sov. is the white elephant of the fleet, it would
be perfectly reasonable to have a name change (a la E-A/Yorktown)
Lotus IV
>The USS Sovereign and USS Enterprise-E are two different ships. There may
>or may not be *other* ships of the class, but we know these two exist. As
>to why none ever show up on DS9--well, it's easily confused with the Ent-E
>anyway.
>
>
then why show galaxies?
Hrunting
On 22 Mar 1998, Lotus IV wrote:
: No, they would want a big flagship, and I think they wouldn't want an
: enterprise class, so if the sov. is the white elephant of the fleet, it would
: be perfectly reasonable to have a name change (a la E-A/Yorktown)
Except the Yorktown wasn't really a white elephant, was it? I mean, I
always thought that there were lots of other Constitution-class vessels
in service. The precedent established by Star Trek writers is that the
Enterprise is not the only ship of its class, but that it doesn't
generally hold some sort of position as Federation flagship.
---------------------------------------------
Hrunting
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GO/FA/CS d- s++: a--->? C++ US P+>++++ L+>++ E--- W+++$ N++ o--
K- w O- M-- V-- PS PE Y+ PGP++ t+ 5+ X+++ R* tv+ b++ DI++++ D++
G e>++++ h r+ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Drums1979
>>I think the Sovereign is the coolest design yet.
>
>why does the asylum let you use the computer? You could hurt yourself.
Why doesn't the government just release your real medical file so we can know
why that chip on your shoulder is intrefering with your sane judgement?
Lotus IV
>
>: No, they would want a big flagship, and I think they wouldn't want an
>: enterprise class, so if the sov. is the white elephant of the fleet, it
>would
>: be perfectly reasonable to have a name change (a la E-A/Yorktown)
>
>Except the Yorktown wasn't really a white elephant, was it? I mean, I
>always thought that there were lots of other Constitution-class vessels
>in service. The precedent established by Star Trek writers is that the
>Enterprise is not the only ship of its class, but that it doesn't
>generally hold some sort of position as Federation flagship.
didn't say it was. I just meant that *if* there was only one sov., it would be
perfectly reasonable to rename it the enterprise, as they renamed the yorktown:
because they needed an enterprise.
Lotus IV
>Why doesn't the government just release your real medical file so we can know
>why that chip on your shoulder is intrefering with your sane judgement?
>
>
>
because it has no power over non kremji citizens
Alan & Danny
I think that all the Classes of starships are remarkably done and
designed.... The Sovereign is a beautiful design, even if it is part
Intrepid, Excelsior, and Galaxy Classes. I think that there should be
diversity in ship design even if it is parts of other classes.... If you
look at the Nebula Class and the Miranda (Soyuz Class) it came from the same
basic idea. Or like the Enterprise-B, it's design was differnt from the rest
of the other Excesior Classes... We need to understand that these designs
are works of art...
Take Care,
Jose Arvelo
<bui...@frontiernet.net>
Athman Boukhaoua wrote in message <3511A35F...@active.ch>...
>Ben Fitzpatrick schrieb:
>>
>> Why do the Sovereign (sp?) and Excelsior class engineering hulls look so
much alike? If not for the different saucer, the E-E could be mistaken for
an Excelsior class ship. Also, for a special bonus, Look on pages. 221 and
213 of The Art of Star Trek. There are TWO almost exact copies of the
Sovereign class design. one is a concept sketch for a new Excelsior, the
other is a random ship docked at a starbase.
>
>IMO, the Souvereign class is one of the worst ship (in terms of design)
>in the whole Star Trek history.
>It heavily borrows from the Intrepid, the Excelsior and the Galaxy class
>without adding any new features (Like they did it with the Nebula, Defiant
>or the Akira class)
>The 'All good things' Galaxy refit was so cool and now the Federation has
>such a boring ship as their flagship. No wonder there were very few
externals
>in First Contact.
>
ChiasmusHF
Why do they need the Enterprise to be the flagship? The 1701 wasn't, and I
don't believe the 1701A was, either.
BTW, there are a lot of Constitution class star-ships. They were cheap to make
for the origional series -- some of them even had a combination of the numbers
0,1,1, and 7 as the symbol. They're just spare or previously demolished
Enterprises they touched up. ; D
Timo S Saloniemi
In article <3512C4...@earthlink.net> mco...@earthlink.net writes:
>therre's no way that the Sovereign is the successor to the Excelsior. I
>mean the excelsior class has been in service for nearly a century and
>you see them everywhere on the trek shows. They got to be the most
>sucessfull design in starfleet history. It's been over two years since
>FC, and in the movie, that ship had been in service for over a year, but
>I haven't seen a single sovereign class since. It's pretty accepted
>canon that at most two sovereign class ships were ever built, in fact
>the Enterprise-e might just be the USS sovereign but got it's name
>changed.
>
>expensive and\or had overpowering problems ala defiant, and the program
>got cancelled.
I'm not implying that the Excelsior class has ALREADY been superceded by
the Sovereign class, silly :)
I just propose that Starfleet finally intends to get rid of those
100-yr-old clunkers and has fielded one or two Sovereigns as a
possible replacement, with 3000 others to follow as soon as
the test runs are complete and enough raw materials have been
gathered. The situation in 2374 would be similar to the situation
of the Excelsior class in 2285 - just a prototype or two in
existence, and the previous main class (Constitution) still going
strong.
I don't think the Sovereigns are a 1-to-1 match to the Excelsiors,
either. They just fill roughly the same niche, with a couple of
variations. In TOS, the Constitutions seemed to take care of
both exploration and defence - but in the TNG years, the Excelsiors
seemed to exclusively do defence-related duties, with the fancy
"explorers" getting all the interesting jobs. Perhaps the Sovereigns
will bring back the type of mission profile that combines capital
defence with capital exploration?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>then why show Galaxies?
Because TNG is over already, silly :)
Seriously, the first couple of times we saw a Galaxy in DS9 might have been
a bit confusing to some viewers, but it was made pretty clear that these ships
were not the Enterprise. And the latest episodes have shown great numbers
of Galaxies in one shot, thus hopefully making even the less bright among the
viewership realize that since not ALL of them can be the E-D, perhaps
NONE of them is. And hopefully many of the viewers have also seen the
movie that showed the destruction of the E-D.
If a Sovereign was to be shown in DS9, it would require some explaining
so that no viewer could become confused. But I don't think this is the
main issue why we won't see any Sovereigns around in DS9 - the real reason
is that the design would lose some of its "coolness factor" if other ships
of that name appeared elsewhere. With Galaxies, one doesn't have to worry
about the factor, since the producers WANT to make these ships "uncool" to
make the E-E even cooler in comparison. I believe there is a policy at
Paramount not to let the Sovereign model be used outside TNG movies, just
as the Jem'Hadar are not to be used in Voyager, or the Borg in DS9, except
for some random one-liners. We aren't likely to see an Intrepid in DS9
or in a TNG movie, either.
Timo Saloniemi
Ian Ross-Gowan
Lotus IV wrote...
>>The USS Sovereign and USS Enterprise-E are two different ships. There
may
>>or may not be *other* ships of the class, but we know these two exist.
As
>>to why none ever show up on DS9--well, it's easily confused with the
Ent-E
>>anyway.
>
They also did not show Galaxys or another Sovereign in First Contact --
Probably for the same reason. While eliminating confusion may be that
reason, I think it is a silly reason. Lucky, the producers are not making a
series about the USS Nimitz.
Ian
Ian Ross-Gowan
Timo S Saloniemi wrote...
>If a Sovereign was to be shown in DS9, it would require some explaining
>so that no viewer could become confused. But I don't think this is the
>main issue why we won't see any Sovereigns around in DS9 - the real reason
>is that the design would lose some of its "coolness factor" if other ships
>of that name appeared elsewhere. With Galaxies, one doesn't have to worry
>about the factor, since the producers WANT to make these ships "uncool" to
>make the E-E even cooler in comparison.
For a moment I thought you were going to say that with Galaxys you never
have to worry about them looking cool. I always thought that class could
look really odd from a number of angles.
>I believe there is a policy at
>Paramount not to let the Sovereign model be used outside TNG movies, just
>as the Jem'Hadar are not to be used in Voyager, or the Borg in DS9, except
>for some random one-liners. We aren't likely to see an Intrepid in DS9
>or in a TNG movie, either.
Silly isn't it
Ian
Robert Oliver
Lotus IV wrote:
>
> >The USS Sovereign and USS Enterprise-E are two different ships. There may
> >or may not be *other* ships of the class, but we know these two exist. As
> >to why none ever show up on DS9--well, it's easily confused with the Ent-E
> >anyway.
> >
> >
>
> then why show galaxies?
Because Enterprise-D has been destroyed and the producers no longer have
any need to worry about people getting a Galaxy class ship confused with
Enterprise. The Galaxy class is no longer "special."
--
Robert Oliver
A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/)
Timeline * Characters * Lifeforms * Locations * Spacecraft * Equipment
Science * Medical * Starfleet * UFP * USS Enterprise
Deep Space 9 * USS Defiant * USS Voyager
Big Country: Steeltown
(http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm)
Jason Atkinson
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 06:41:46 -0500, Robert Oliver <rol...@mint.net>
wrote:
>>
>> then why show galaxies?
Because the rest of space is rather boring.
>Because Enterprise-D has been destroyed and the producers no longer have
>any need to worry about people getting a Galaxy class ship confused with
>Enterprise. The Galaxy class is no longer "special."
>
Other Constitutions were shown in TOS. Other Galaxies were shown in
TNG. Other stations of identicle design were shown in DS9.
CFB1
ChiasmusHF wrote:
The difference was in the crews of each of the Enterprises, starting with the
'Lucky Little Enterprise'. Each version of Enterprise has always been among the
first or best in any situation. That tradition could very well continue well into
the 24th century.
--
From Bad Carl's Cavern. http://pages.prodigy.net/cfb1
***WARNING***
Spamming me can be hazardous to your health.
Like sticking your thumb up a leopard's ass.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
When any government, or any church for that
matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you
may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and
oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
Mighty little force is needed to control a man
whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrawise, no
amount of force can control a free man, a man
whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission
bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man;
the most you can do is kill him.
R.A.H. 1940
And still true today. . .
CFB1
Lotus IV wrote:
You think you two could possibly take your argument outside for a while, please?
Thank you.
Euan Kilgour
In article <6f5fql$r...@nntp.hut.fi>, tsal...@bombastium.hut.fi (Timo S
Saloniemi) wrote:
> make the E-E even cooler in comparison. I believe there is a policy at
> Paramount not to let the Sovereign model be used outside TNG movies, just
> as the Jem'Hadar are not to be used in Voyager, or the Borg in DS9, except
> for some random one-liners. We aren't likely to see an Intrepid in DS9
> or in a TNG movie, either.
I can see why the Jem Hadar won't be in Voyager, but why not use Intrepid
class starships in DS9? I seems obvious that there are more than one
around. Have Paramount been using Intrepid class variants or something
instead?
Timo S Saloniemi
>>Except the Yorktown wasn't really a white elephant, was it? I mean, I
>>always thought that there were lots of other Constitution-class vessels
>>in service. The precedent established by Star Trek writers is that the
>>Enterprise is not the only ship of its class, but that it doesn't
>>generally hold some sort of position as Federation flagship.
>didn't say it was. I just meant that *if* there was only one Sov., it
>would be perfectly reasonable to rename it the Enterprise, as they renamed
>the Yorktown: because they needed an Enterprise.
Which brings us to the question of why they needed an Enterprise the second
time around. Renaming the Yorktown (or some other Constitution - we still
don't know which one for sure) was done to give Kirk a nice gift. Did
Starfleet want to give Picard a nice gift, too? For what? Lending a
hand in the rescue of a backwater planet - something Kirk did six days of
the week?
Starfleet was in no hurry to rename a ship "Enterprise" when the E-C bit
stardust. There was a 20-year gap before the E-D got commissioned. Why
the hurry to get an E-E? Was it because the captain of the former E was
still alive, whereas the captain of the E-C did not survive the demise of
her ship? Does Starfleet extend this kind of courtesy to all its captains?
Why didn't Picard get a new Stargazer, then?
Or does this have something to do with whether there are Paramount cameras
available to record the adventures of a certain ship or not?...
Timo Saloniemi
mcooney (aka MCC evil1)
One nice thing about the Defiant, when it first appeared, was it
wasn't necessarily beautifull, nor the best or even most powerfull, but
is was uniquie and exclusive to DS9. Now that we see more similar
ships, it's not as "special". If Enterprise-E was a sovereign prototype
and none were built after, it would perpetualy maintain that sense of
specialness and the cool factor. My only problem with it is if the
enterprise is an expensive test bed vehicle, why is it NCC and not NX?
Hrunting wrote:
>
> On 22 Mar 1998, Lotus IV wrote:
>
> : No, they would want a big flagship, and I think they wouldn't want an
> : enterprise class, so if the sov. is the white elephant of the fleet, it would
> : be perfectly reasonable to have a name change (a la E-A/Yorktown)
>
> Except the Yorktown wasn't really a white elephant, was it? I mean, I
> always thought that there were lots of other Constitution-class vessels
> in service. The precedent established by Star Trek writers is that the
> Enterprise is not the only ship of its class, but that it doesn't
> generally hold some sort of position as Federation flagship.
>
Lotus IV
>Which brings us to the question of why they needed an Enterprise the second
>time around. Renaming the Yorktown (or some other Constitution - we still
>don't know which one for sure) was done to give Kirk a nice gift. Did
>Starfleet want to give Picard a nice gift, too? For what? Lending a
>hand in the rescue of a backwater planet - something Kirk did six days of
>the week?
>
>
They gave kirk a new enterprise because they realized that they needed to
invent some pathway for Picard. Really, I think that they needed a replica
enterprise for the most prestigios captain in the fleet. Maybe for diplomatic
reasons. He did wind up becoming rather famous,, maybe even throughout the
galaxy....
As for Picard. They had a bad run with the E-C maybe they were just fed up
with the E-'s and by the time of the GCS project, people wanted a major
flagship again, some main ship of the fleet, and this mentality carried over...
Brad Stethem
Lotus IV wrote in message
<199803250339...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>As for Picard. They had a bad run with the E-C maybe they were just fed
up
>with the E-'s and by the time of the GCS project, people wanted a major
>flagship again, some main ship of the fleet, and this mentality carried
over...
According to the TNG Tech Manual, the GCS project took over 20 years (maybe
even 30, I can't remember). So at the time the E-C was destroyed, the GCS
would have already been in early development, and Starfleet may have always
planned to name one of the first GCS Enterprise. Of course, they would have
expected the E-C to last a little longer, and if it had survived the next 20
years it probably would have been retired or renamed so that Starfleet would
have a brand new GCS Enterprise flagship.
Sean J. Michelin
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Nopel wrote:
>
> mco...@earthlink.net heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3512C4...@earthlink.net>...
> >therre's no way that the Sovereign is the successor to the Excelsior. I
> >mean the excelsior class has been in service for nearly a century and
> >you see them everywhere on the trek shows. They got to be the most
> >sucessfull design in starfleet history. It's been over two years since
> >FC, and in the movie, that ship had been in service for over a year, but
> >I haven't seen a single sovereign class since. It's pretty accepted
> >canon that at most two sovereign class ships were ever built, in fact
> >the Enterprise-e might just be the USS sovereign but got it's name
> >changed.
> >
the reason why people think that the sovereign class may be superior(and
p[ossibly is) to the excelsior is whats "under the hood". the excelsior
was the laughing stock of the fleet for a while due to the bomb of
transwarp technology. it was easily surpassed in such a short while. it
is ok as an admirals ship, or for accomidating dignitaries, but as a
workhorse, or as a battlecruiser, it can't even hold a candle to the
sovereign class.
mcooney (aka MCC evil1)
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> In article <199803222056...@ladder01.news.aol.com> lot...@aol.com (Lotus IV) writes:
> >>or may not be *other* ships of the class, but we know these two exist. As
> >>to why none ever show up on DS9--well, it's easily confused with the Ent-E
> >>anyway.
>
>
> Because TNG is over already, silly :)
>
> Seriously, the first couple of times we saw a Galaxy in DS9 might have been
> a bit confusing to some viewers, but it was made pretty clear that these ships
> were not the Enterprise. And the latest episodes have shown great numbers
> of Galaxies in one shot, thus hopefully making even the less bright among the
> viewership realize that since not ALL of them can be the E-D, perhaps
> NONE of them is. And hopefully many of the viewers have also seen the
> movie that showed the destruction of the E-D.
>
> so that no viewer could become confused. But I don't think this is the
> main issue why we won't see any Sovereigns around in DS9 - the real reason
> is that the design would lose some of its "coolness factor" if other ships
> of that name appeared elsewhere. With Galaxies, one doesn't have to worry
> about the factor, since the producers WANT to make these ships "uncool" to
> Paramount not to let the Sovereign model be used outside TNG movies, just
> as the Jem'Hadar are not to be used in Voyager, or the Borg in DS9, except
> for some random one-liners. We aren't likely to see an Intrepid in DS9
> or in a TNG movie, either.
>
I don't know about that anymore being the reason. There are new ships
like the Prometheus that have just as much cool factor. And have
noticed that Voyager, when they moved to CGI, the model is much much
more detailed now than it was. There was one where an alien was walking
along the bottom of the saucer, and you could see everything from
controll knobs on the airlock to "welding patterns" on the connected
hullplates. Ent-E just doens't wow me quite as much, and I had often
complained that ILM had made that model seriously underdetailed for
motion pictures.
Adrie Geuken
mcooney (aka MCC evil1) wrote:
Sorry, to butt in but I will be commanding a Sovereign class Starship
soon (I hope) in a RPG and was wondering if any of you might have any
pic's or info on that class.
They would be very much appreciated!
--
Adrie Geuken (a3ge...@wxs.nl)
ICQ 7205671
Lt. Aragorn, First Officer USS Spectre. (A FGN starship)