View Single Post
Old May 6 2009, 12:51 AM   #232
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Excelsior Technical Manual - Revived!

ShinRa Actual wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
Okay, time to pick this back up.
I prefer that the E-A was a new-build testbed, because I think it just makes more sense with the on-screen evidence. It might have been called Yorktown or Ti-Ho. My only purpose was to establish 1) it was a new build that proved unsuccessful, both explaining the E-A's early retirement and why Starfleet would favor Excelsiors instead of refit Connies, and 2) that it was not the original Yorktown.
My personal opinion (and my adherance to the old salt's opinion on renaming a ship) is that the Ent-A was a new ship, and definately not the Yorktown mentioned in STIV and TOS before that. That being said, she may have been ordered with another prospective name before it being decided to change the name to have another Enterprise in service ASAP. (such as Yorktown, Lexington, and Wasp during WWII)
Exactly where I'm at.

I also believe she was built from parts pares left after the refit program was completed - much as the space shuttle Endeavour was, only incorporating Excelsior-level tech.

ShinRa Actual wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
So in the long and short of it, the E-A may indeed have had transwarp when she was first cobbled together. Somehow I imagine that by the time the old crew got their hands on her, the transwarp drive would have either been reconfigured or refit into standard warp drive - maybe even by Scotty himself.
Scott's Guide only covered the TVH Ent-A as I recall...is there any mention of Transwarp on the TFF Graphics anywhere? If not, the Transwarp stuff being removed may have been part of the reason of the -A's...less than stellar condition during TFF.
The Okudagrams for the TVH set mentioned transwarp, and 'Mr. Scott's Guide' seemed to suggest that transwarp was a success because of it. TFF removed the transwarp references from the graphics, presumably reflecting TNG's recalibration of the warp scale. In fact, I imagine that's why it was decided transwarp failed - they wanted to revamp the system anyway.

ShinRa Actual wrote: View Post
Having driven from Florida to NY many times, I've been to see the Showboat several times (and other memorials). North Carolina is one of the best ones to visit, imho.
That's good to know. I really want to visit some more.

ShinRa Actual wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
There was a throwaway reference to it in the history section, which was hopefully vague enough for anyone to ignore, that NCC-2001 went from being slated to be Enterprise to Ingram, which was an attempt to make a 'Space Control Ship' out of what was quickly becoming a 'failure.' And that is basically my take on it - that Ingram was built to quite different specifications and formed its own subclass.
Ingram was, a copy of the configuration can be found over at the old SSDB; http://shipschematics.net/startrek/i...ser_ingram.jpg
The implication I got from the old SotSF book was more along the lines that Excelsior was the one that was the 'modified' version, which would explain why the Ingram has a slightly more 1701-Refit style to it. Another fanon book series that tried being a continuation of the SotSF books stated that Sulu was involved in having Excelsior refit from a fast Battleship into a more exploratory-minded ship (I can try and find the links to those if you're interested) which helped the class move beyond the failed Transwarp Battleship project into the more general purpose ship they evidently became between ST6 and TNG.
I'm sort of opposite thinking about it - for me, the Ingram was an attempt to take the basic shape of the Excelsior, imbue it with refit-level (and therefore theoretically 'safe') tech, and produce a Space Control Ship as a way of salvaging the research that had gone into it. For me, Excelsior was meant to be a traditional heavy cruiser and replacement for the Constitution class all along - it was the people trying to make the Space Control Ship that wanted it to be something else, and ultimately sort of where the Ambassador comes from later on.

ShinRa Actual wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
Of course, given that we never saw them on screen, it's my belief that they were less successful than the Excelsior, and, being even more limited in role, met with the same problem that dreadnoughts did (i.e., not having anything to do) and hit the chopping block in the early 24th century as a part of the decommissioning/disarmament concessions to the Klingons.
I actually put that forth as a theory for why the -A was withdrawn from service a while back; The arms reduction treaty with the Klingons mandated removing ships from service. While the -A herself was fairly new...the design was old (dating back 50 years if you consider it a direct lineage to 2245). In the end run, Starfleet would probably want another new Excelsior (or other new type) in service than keeping the -A.
That's actually almost exactly what I have going on - the Klingons and Federation agree to disarm, and the Federation agrees to only have x number of heavy cruisers, and decides it is best to decommission the old Connies and sequentially replace them with Excelsiors, which was what they were probably going to do anyway. (They are also forced to decommission all battleships/dreadnoughts - which ultimately gives rise to the Ambassador and Galaxy - battleships/dreadnoughts in power, but with an entirely different purpose.)
__________________
"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