RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,170
Posts: 5,435,247
Members: 24,939
Currently online: 435
Newest member: katlynwomack

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 7 2013, 11:42 PM   #61
The Badger
Fleet Captain
 
The Badger's Avatar
 
Location: Im in ur Tardis, violating ur canon.
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
A case can also be made that the Khitomer Accords never required Starfleet to reduce its forces at all.
Admiral Cartwright seemed to think they did.

CARTWRIGHT: I must protest. To offer the Klingons a safe haven within Federation space is suicide. Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy. And if we dismantle the fleet [emphasis mine], we'd be defenceless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory. The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees. Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms.

He's not the only one.

CHANG: Tell me, Captain Kirk, would you be willing to give up Starfleet?

SPOCK: I believe the Captain feels that Starfleet's mission has always been one of peace.

It's possible that Chang is referring to Kirk's imminent retirement, but then Spock's statement would be a complete non-sequiter.

The dialogue in the film strongly indicates that Star Fleet is at least considering a reduction of it's military assets, and not just starbases near the Klingon border. Now I freely admit there is no proof that they did do this, nor that any specific ship type was affected, but in the absence of conflicting evidence it is as good an explanation as any as to the lack of Constitutions in later years
The Badger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 12:06 AM   #62
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

[QUOTE=Robert Comsol;8471077]
SicOne wrote: View Post

The Constitution Class Enterprise (i.e. NCC-1701-A) had the trademark of being "Kirk's ship", thus it's appearance in TNG at a time when we still had movies with the original Crew would have confused general audiences.

I call BS on this explanation. TNG had quite a few episodes depicting the Excelsior class ships, and no one was confused thinking that was either Stiles' ship or later, Sulu's ship. The audience would have been bright enough to figure out that a Constitution class doesn't necessarily mean Kirk's Enterprise. And when they finally did show a Constitution, named Defiant BTW, no one confused it with being either Kirk's Enterprise, or Sisko's Defiant.

I think the real reason was probably just a political pissing contest and over royalties between Paramount not wanting to grant ILM or CBS a model or CGI template of a refit constitution class ship, when the TOS cst were making movies at the same time as TNG was in first run.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 01:01 AM   #63
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post

There was also the Bozeman that lacked a rollbar prior to the Soyuz-class retirement not too long after "The Undiscovered Country".

And in early DS9 we saw Sisko's Saratoga that participated in the Battle of Wolf-359 which also lacked the rollbar. It wasn't until the Dominion War kicked off in earnest that we saw a resurgence of Mirandas with the rollbars, IIRC.
The Bozeman was a separate subclass and not a standard Miranda, and one could argue that the same is true of the Saratoga (I know one offscreen source that treats it this way, with the Saratoga having been modified to be lead of a new class). Since the modified Saratoga didn't appear until DS9, I was mainly referring to those ships we saw in TNG.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 01:55 AM   #64
CharlieZardoz
Lieutenant
 
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

[QUOTE=TheSubCommander;8483272]
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
SicOne wrote: View Post

The Constitution Class Enterprise (i.e. NCC-1701-A) had the trademark of being "Kirk's ship", thus it's appearance in TNG at a time when we still had movies with the original Crew would have confused general audiences.

I call BS on this explanation. TNG had quite a few episodes depicting the Excelsior class ships, and no one was confused thinking that was either Stiles' ship or later, Sulu's ship. The audience would have been bright enough to figure out that a Constitution class doesn't necessarily mean Kirk's Enterprise. And when they finally did show a Constitution, named Defiant BTW, no one confused it with being either Kirk's Enterprise, or Sisko's Defiant.

I think the real reason was probably just a political pissing contest and over royalties between Paramount not wanting to grant ILM or CBS a model or CGI template of a refit constitution class ship, when the TOS cst were making movies at the same time as TNG was in first run.
I agree. Something about the rights of the studio model probably affected the decision. I did also hear it was a massive and heavy thing to work with as well, and possibly not in the same studio as the other TNG models.
CharlieZardoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 03:19 AM   #65
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
A big problem with that theory is that it was established in dialogue that the Miranda class (i.e. the Reliant) is faster and more heavily armed than the Constitution class (i.e. the Enterprise).
That doesn't sound right. In "The Wrath of Khan", it was established the lightly-damaged Reliant was able "to out-run and out-gun" the heavily-damaged Enterprise.

We do not know how the two ships compare to each other in their undamaged states.

We do have some hints though.
1. The Enterprise holds the speed records that the Excelsior aims to break. She likely has more power and thus more power for phasers.
2. The Miranda-variant-with-rollbar, Reliant, has the same number of phaser emitters as the Enterprise and possibly 2 extra aft-torpedo launchers.
3. The Mirandas that we see in TNG are mostly the ones without the rollbar which reduces the ship's phaser emitter count by at least 4 and torpedo launcher count by 3 (moving the launcher to the saucer underside.)
4. The Dominion War saw the Miranda-variant-with-rollbar return in number.

A key point in "The Undiscovered Country" was the mothballing and retirement of the military program of Starfleet. The Enterprise and her type could've been part of that group. The Mirandas by design could be made into a non-threatening explorer by removal of the rollbar. So it would make sense for Starfleet to stay flexible with keeping the Mirandas around but retire the more dedicated warships like the Enterprise, IMHO.
Wait, when was the Enterprise ever a dedicated warship? She was an explorer and patrol ship with 14 science labs aboard, and numerous first-contact missions to her credit.

Seems the Mirandas with the 4-tube torpedo pod and heavy rollbar phasers is the more warlike ship.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 03:34 AM   #66
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

According to Kruge's crew, it was a battleship...
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 03:36 AM   #67
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Unicron wrote: View Post
The Bozeman was a separate subclass and not a standard Miranda, and one could argue that the same is true of the Saratoga (I know one offscreen source that treats it this way, with the Saratoga having been modified to be lead of a new class). Since the modified Saratoga didn't appear until DS9, I was mainly referring to those ships we saw in TNG.
But then again, we never saw a "standard" Miranda after "The Voyage Home" until the Dominion War came along. All of these subclasses could've been Starfleet experimenting with a "de-fanged" version of the ship and then re-mounting the rollbars whenever a war broke out for a quick conversion from exploration ship to warship, IMHO.

Forbin wrote: View Post
Wait, when was the Enterprise ever a dedicated warship? She was an explorer and patrol ship with 14 science labs aboard, and numerous first-contact missions to her credit.
She was also part of the "frozen" "military forces" identified by the Organians ("Errand of Mercy") and also her presence in the Romulan Neutral Zone would be viewed as a "military intrusion" ("Way to Eden"). IMHO, the Enterprise-A at the time of her retirement was probably a lot more like a warship that could explore than a multi-role ship that could do anything. Her class retirement along with the "military program" of Starfleet after "The Undiscovered Country" is an interesting coincidence that I'm taking advantage of

Forbin wrote: View Post
Seems the Mirandas with the 4-tube torpedo pod and heavy rollbar phasers is the more warlike ship.
And take the rollbar off and you lose alot of that war-capability. Although the phasers on the rollbar are exactly like the phaser ball emitters on the rest of the ship so I don't think it gave it more firepower but just better phaser coverage. The 2 tubes facing aft might be more indicative of the necessity to flee a battle and discourage pursuers. I would've put more forward tubes on the Reliant to really indicate a firepower advantage over the Enterprise, IMHO. (Heck, the TOS Enterprise had 6 tubes facing forward...)
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 03:48 AM   #68
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

TheSubCommander wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post


I call BS on this explanation. TNG had quite a few episodes depicting the Excelsior class ships, and no one was confused thinking that was either Stiles' ship or later, Sulu's ship. The audience would have been bright enough to figure out that a Constitution class doesn't necessarily mean Kirk's Enterprise. And when they finally did show a Constitution, named Defiant BTW, no one confused it with being either Kirk's Enterprise, or Sisko's Defiant.

I think the real reason was probably just a political pissing contest and over royalties between Paramount not wanting to grant ILM or CBS a model or CGI template of a refit constitution class ship, when the TOS cst were making movies at the same time as TNG was in first run.
I agree. Something about the rights of the studio model probably affected the decision. I did also hear it was a massive and heavy thing to work with as well, and possibly not in the same studio as the other TNG models.
Hmmm...and to think that old Doug Trumbull wanted to build it even bigger to give the audience a massive impression of scale. The ILM folks should count their lucky stars that he didn't wind up getting budget approval for such an up-scaling of the TMP filming "miniature".
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 03:54 AM   #69
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Unicron wrote: View Post
According to Kruge's crew, it was a battleship...
Technically, they called it a "Federation battle cruiser."

Galaxy and Sovereign Classes would be more like battle ships.

Hmmm...and to think that old Doug Trumbull wanted to build it even bigger to give the audience a massive impression of scale. The ILM folks should count their lucky stars that he didn't wind up getting budget approval for such an up-scaling of the TMP filming "miniature".
Are you saying there was plans to bring a refit connie to the small screen?
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 05:05 AM   #70
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

The Badger wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
A case can also be made that the Khitomer Accords never required Starfleet to reduce its forces at all.
Admiral Cartwright seemed to think they did.
Only in the sense of reducing Starfleet's presence along the Neutral Zone.

CARTWRIGHT: I must protest. To offer the Klingons a safe haven within Federation space is suicide. Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy. And if we dismantle the fleet [emphasis mine], we'd be defenceless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory. The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees. Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms.
Dismantling all of Starfleet simply because of détente with the Klingons? Nah, that's unrealistic and actually contradicts what the C-in-C just said about the rest of Starfleet not being effected. But reducing a fleet that was on permanent deployment along the Neutral Zone does fit the bill of what Cartwright said.

He's not the only one.

CHANG: Tell me, Captain Kirk, would you be willing to give up Starfleet?

SPOCK: I believe the Captain feels that Starfleet's mission has always been one of peace.

It's possible that Chang is referring to Kirk's imminent retirement, but then Spock's statement would be a complete non-sequiter.
Actually, what we can take from this is a Klingon general's belief that Starfleet (and Kirk) existed solely to fight Klingons and Spock stating that was not the case.
The dialogue in the film strongly indicates that Star Fleet is at least considering a reduction of it's military assets, and not just starbases near the Klingon border.
I think it just suggests a reduction of Starfleet forces along the Neutral Zone--which would fit all the dialogue in the film. But the idea that the Federation would agree to weaken itself completely to match the Klingon's suddenly weakened position not only doesn't make much sense, it also doesn't match what happens afterward.
Now I freely admit there is no proof that they did do this, nor that any specific ship type was affected, but in the absence of conflicting evidence it is as good an explanation as any as to the lack of Constitutions in later years
I think it's simply a case that the Federation and the Klingons just agreed to end their cold war and stop pointing their guns at one another. As far as the lack of Constitution-class ships in TNG, it's far easier to attest that to it just being a long out-of-production design from the previous century (not every design can last 100 years, IMO). We can even go with the idea that there are still some Constitution-class ships in the 24th-Century, but that they're deployed where our heroes aren't (being deployed somewhere else would also explain the lack of Ambassador-class ships after Wolf 359 and the absence of the Sovereign-class during the Dominion War).
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 06:00 AM   #71
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Actually, what we can take from this is a Klingon general's belief that Starfleet (and Kirk) existed solely to fight Klingons and Spock stating that was not the case.
You're forgetting that Chang is actually part of Cartwright's group of co-conspirators and was probably eavesdropping on that classified briefing just like Valeris. He specifically asked that question as a way of sabotaging what was an otherwise perfectly friendly occasion by goading Kirk into saying something undiplomatic.

I think it's simply a case that the Federation and the Klingons just agreed to end their cold war and stop pointing their guns at one another. As far as the lack of Constitution-class ships in TNG, it's far easier to attest that to it just being a long out-of-production design from the previous century (not every design can last 100 years, IMO).
Maybe they CAN? For all we know, the Constitution class (in its original version) has been in service since the 2290s. In that sense, the Constitutions wouldn't be Alreigh Burke destroyers; they'd be the old Cleavelands, about half of which got to soldier on a little longer when Starfleet rebuilt them with the latest gear.

The other thing to consider is that the Miranda class ships like Reliant probably didn't replace the Constitutions the way we're thinking. It's more likely that distinction goes to the Constellation class, which is inexplicably still in service after 80 years.

We can even go with the idea that there are still some Constitution-class ships in the 24th-Century, but that they're deployed where our heroes aren't (being deployed somewhere else would also explain the lack of Ambassador-class ships after Wolf 359 and the absence of the Sovereign-class during the Dominion War).
I could take this being true of the Constellations, since we have actually seen a few of these lurking about a few times in TNG. But I think the Constitution design family traces back WAY farther than we give them credit for; we could expect to see them in TNG the same way we'd expect Kirk to run into NX-03.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 08:26 AM   #72
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Actually, what we can take from this is a Klingon general's belief that Starfleet (and Kirk) existed solely to fight Klingons and Spock stating that was not the case.
You're forgetting that Chang is actually part of Cartwright's group of co-conspirators and was probably eavesdropping on that classified briefing just like Valeris.
I doubt that. Chang was simply talking like any Klingon general would right then and there.
He specifically asked that question as a way of sabotaging what was an otherwise perfectly friendly occasion by goading Kirk into saying something undiplomatic.
Which essentially was all the question was.
I think it's simply a case that the Federation and the Klingons just agreed to end their cold war and stop pointing their guns at one another. As far as the lack of Constitution-class ships in TNG, it's far easier to attest that to it just being a long out-of-production design from the previous century (not every design can last 100 years, IMO).
Maybe they CAN?
You ignored the rest of my quote in which I indeed said they could. In fact, here it is below:
C.E. Evans wrote:
We can even go with the idea that there are still some Constitution-class ships in the 24th-Century, but that they're deployed where our heroes aren't (being deployed somewhere else would also explain the lack of Ambassador-class ships after Wolf 359 and the absence of the Sovereign-class during the Dominion War).
I could take this being true of the Constellations, since we have actually seen a few of these lurking about a few times in TNG. But I think the Constitution design family traces back WAY farther than we give them credit for; we could expect to see them in TNG the same way we'd expect Kirk to run into NX-03.
I actually wouldn't expect Kirk to run into NX-03. As I said earlier, I don't think every design lasts 100 years. I think the majority of starship designs do eventually become obsolete and are retired, replaced by newer designs.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 10:45 AM   #73
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You ignored the rest of my quote in which I indeed said they could.
No I didn't; on the contrary, you ignored the rest of MY quote in which I said it's likely they were ALREADY a hundred years old by the time Kirk went into retirement. That they can survive just about long -- and DID -- is why we never saw them again.

I actually wouldn't expect Kirk to run into NX-03. As I said earlier, I don't think every design lasts 100 years. I think the majority of starship designs do eventually become obsolete and are retired, replaced by newer designs.
And as I said, I believe the Constitution class became obsolete some time before Wrath of Khan and was in the process of being replaced by the Constellation class. We know for a fact that the USS Hathaway was commissioned around this time, and we also know that Hathaway was far from the first ship of its class. Between the Excelsiors, Constellations and Soyuz types all coming off the assembly line all around this time, it seems obvious the Constitutions were being modernized only to squeeze out some last bit of usefulness from the old designs (or as a testbed for new technologies, like the Albany class CG conversions) only to quickly find themselves outmoded by newer and more capable designs.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 11:21 AM   #74
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You ignored the rest of my quote in which I indeed said they could.
No I didn't; on the contrary, you ignored the rest of MY quote...
Um, no. You forgot that you began by responding to my post. How can I ignore something that you hadn't said yet?


In any event, in regard to any NX-class ships still being in service by the time of TOS, I just don't think that's very likely as I said below:
C.E. Evans wrote:
I actually wouldn't expect Kirk to run into NX-03. As I said earlier, I don't think every design lasts 100 years. I think the majority of starship designs do eventually become obsolete and are retired, replaced by newer designs.
Essentially all I have to say on this issue.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 01:23 PM   #75
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
And take the rollbar off and you lose alot of that war-capability.
...which excuse doesn't mitigate the war capability with the rollbar ON.

Although the phasers on the rollbar are exactly like the phaser ball emitters on the rest of the ship
Are they exactly the same? The special effects on TWOK made them seem the same, but they sure looked like they were meant to be different and more piowerful.

so I don't think it gave it more firepower but just better phaser coverage.
...which a warship would need.

The 2 tubes facing aft might be more indicative of the necessity to flee a battle and discourage pursuers. I would've put more forward tubes on the Reliant to really indicate a firepower advantage over the Enterprise, IMHO. (Heck, the TOS Enterprise had 6 tubes facing forward...)
So the USS Iowa's aft 16-inch gun turret was there so it could run away?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.