View Single Post
Old April 6 2009, 11:28 PM   #99
Vice Admiral
Praetor's Avatar
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Excelsior Technical Manual - Revived!

Mark_Nguyen wrote: View Post
Nice touch with the Alaska. Any justification in your mind as to why Starfleet christened an Ambassador class ship as the new Enterprise instead of another Excelsior, even if by then both would be far from brand-new designs? They must have been building new Excelsiors around the 2330s anyway.
Well, mostly because it's the 'biggest and best' by this point, even if it's not literally replacing the heavy cruiser per se. It might also be a way of trying to rally conservative elements in Starfleet who are fans of the legacy around the new design.

There's another point to consider in Excelsior construction that may be noteworthy - we know that they seemed to be built in batches with NCC numbers close together. We know some ships were in the NCC-14xxx range, and a bunch in the NCC-42xxx range with the rest generally scattered below that. It might be worthwhile to point out other ships with distinguished or long-lived service records, for example the other early Excelsior-class ship we know - USS Repulse NCC-2544.
A good suggestion...

That is if you subscribe to the loosely chronological numbering of ships by NCC, of course.
For the most part, yes.

Tallguy wrote: View Post
"The Alaska/Enterprise-C was to be the pioneer of a new sub-type of the Ambassador-class." I'll assume that the old sub-type would be Mr. Probert's original design?
Aye, sir. I was thinking when writing it that perhaps the Ambassador and one or two others would have actually been built and looked like that.

A nice history overall. I think the Ambassador / Galaxy history might be a little off-topic (although interesting).
You'r probably right. At first, I very much downplayed their mention, but their introduction seemed to affect the mission roles that the Excelsior class was later sent on - stealing away some of the more prime exploratory and diplomatic missions. So I felt it was worth a mention.

I might also suggest throwing in a ship or two a) not named Enterprise b) not captained by Star Trek stars. Especially when you stress over and over how many of these ships there are and that they are the backbone of the fleet for decades to come.
A very good idea, which gels nicely with Mark's suggestion of mentioning the Repulse.

It takes a lot to get me to read that much fan text. Even more to convince me that this might be "the way it happened." Very nicely done.
Thank you very much! I feel honored indeed.

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
I second that, maybe a couple capsules on some of the more famous examples... We've seen at least two on TNG captained by "somewhat" famous captains... Figure those two and two more totally made up ones.

Give the green-light and I'll start the Conbabulator churning.
Make it so, Number One.

Tomalak wrote: View Post
Interesting bit on the Ambassador. I like that you hint the name itself was intended to downplay the military aspects in the hopes that the Klingons wouldn't see the reality - that Starfleet was building a new line of massive battleships.
I'm glad you noticed that bit.

You say Enterprise-C was a "sub-type", presumably explaining the physical differences between the 'Yesterday's Enterprise' model and the revamped 'Data's Day' version. Everyone else seems to go with Enterprise-C being the original type, and the later model being the refitted ships. Unless I'm misreading that bit.
Well, like I said, it was partly as a reference to Mr. Probert's original design, and partly to suggest that the revamped version from Data's day wasn't necessarily a refit, perhaps just another sub-type.

On the "other ships" plea, how about some vessels not named after American/British naval ships, something of which Trek writers have always been guilty. I know why they do it, but Starfleet has always been too dominated by Earth, and particularly north Atlantic culture to be a realistic multi-world force. Even the all-Vulcan ship was called USS Intrepid!

Ed - though I've just remembered the Vucan ship in DS9's baseball episode with a suitably Vulcan name. Full marks there.
Indeed. Perhaps I will reference the Repulse and perhaps a ship of Andorian name? U.S.S. Shran? U.S.S. Thelev? (There was also a U.S.S. Sarek and a U.S.S. Sitak, both named after Vulcans, on DS9 FWIW.) This thing does seem to need a big more scope than it has.

Star Trek IV novelization wrote:
A suited-up space tech put the finishing touches on the "A," turned, saw the shuttlecraft, waved jauntily, and powered away on travel jets.
That's awesome on so many levels.

Firstly, "space tech" needs to be used more often with regards to Star Trek engineers - how about it, Praetor?

Secondly, I don't think I've ever seen anything Trek-related being described as "jaunty".

Thirdly, "travel jets". Like "space tech", it's straight out of the fifties. I think I've got this book in a box somewhere, along with the frankly mind-bogglingly strange TMP novelisation, and on this evidence, it's worth fishing it out.
Hm, I'm sure I can work in 'space tech.' Nostalgia is definitely a big part of this for me. Have I mentioned that this all started after I read a book about the history of the Essex class aircraft carrier? It was where I got the approach from, although it was far more detailed, being based on a real-world craft and all. I suppose I could get super-duper detailed if I really wanted to start writing fictional stuff. I need to find the name of that book. It's a must read for those interested.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote