View Single Post
Old April 9 2009, 07:11 PM   #125
Vice Admiral
Praetor's Avatar
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Excelsior Technical Manual - Revived!

RapidNadion wrote: View Post
Praetor, I just wanted to let you know that not since the last official Tech Manual (the DS9 edition) have I been so completely engrossed by a Trek-based work. Your melding of canon events with creative gap-filling is immensely enjoyable, and well-thought out. Please continue posting new material as often as you can. It's become something I look forward to reading daily.
Well, with compliments like that you bet I will. Thank you very, very much! And we haven't even got to the illustrations yet.

sojourner wrote: View Post
Chapter 8, paragraph 1,

"starfleet ageed"

D'oh. It's so easy to miss the obvious. Thanks.

While we're in a momentary lull, I'd like to solicit opinions on the Melbourne.

Now, as most of you probably know, there were actually in the real world two Melbournes - one was a Nebula class study model that sported two extra smaller warp nacelles where other Nebulas have pods (for a total of four) and was glimpsed briefly as a wreck in 'Best of Both Worlds.' Later, when the Battle of Wolf 359 was restaged for 'Emissary,' they used the Excelsior model, relabelled with the higher registry number originally appropriate of the Nebula class ship - which was quite visible on the Excelsior class model when the ship's saucer was destroyed by the Borg cube.

Now, I've obviously retconned the Excelsior-class Melbourne into a refit prototype for the entire class, explaining the weirdly high number - a notion I'm quite happy with. However, I dislike ignoring the Nebula class ship - particularly after reading on Memory Alpha that is was suggested in a TNG short story that both ships were named Melbourne and were present at Wolf 359 - the Nebula being an under-construction replacement for the Excelsior, launched early to meet the Borg, and that it was the Nebula class ship offered to Riker.

I'm contemplating stating that the Excelsior class Melbourne was a 'kitbash' never intended for long-term use, much like the Enterprise-A was stated to have been retired 'early' for similar reasons. What does everyone think of all of this? (I also have a short appendix dedicated to the Melbourne in the technical section, review of which prompted me to be at this crossroads.)
"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

Last edited by Praetor; April 9 2009 at 07:22 PM.
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote