RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,825
Posts: 5,326,864
Members: 24,551
Currently online: 629
Newest member: Mycroft

TrekToday headlines

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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 September 24 2008, 08:17 AM   #31
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

The latter, apparently - although nothing was stated out loud.

Well it must have gotten out somehow; how else would Picard have heard about it?
About what? Picard in the final timeline never heard about any survivors to the E-C debacle. All he knew was that the ship had been lost fighting the Romulans - a bit of information that would easily have reached him because the loss had been at a Klingon colony, and Klingons were allies. Perhaps Romulans in that battle conquered and annexed Khitomer, making it difficult to get information out later on, but we never quite learn this, and it wouldn't affect matters much anyway.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 07:23 PM   #32
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

About what? Picard in the final timeline never heard about any survivors to the E-C debacle. All he knew was that the ship had been lost fighting the Romulans - a bit of information that would easily have reached him because the loss had been at a Klingon colony, and Klingons were allies. Perhaps Romulans in that battle conquered and annexed Khitomer, making it difficult to get information out later on, but we never quite learn this, and it wouldn't affect matters much anyway.
From the script for "Redemption, Pt. II":

GUINAN: How much do you know about what happened to the last ship
named Enterprise?

PICARD: The Enterprise C? It was lost...at the battle of Narendra
Three...while defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.

GUINAN: And... the survivors?

PICARD: There were stories... that there might have been prisoners,
taken back to Romulus. But those were just rumors.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2008, 07:54 AM   #33
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries



Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25 2008, 10:53 PM   #34
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Has anyone considered that perhaps the Ambassador was simply an unsuccessful design? Or that there was a policy shift in Starfleet's shipbuilding; hence the 2nd gen Excelsiors?
Maybe they suffered an unusually high attrition rate, either through a series of disastrous exploration missions or the Cardassian & Tzenkethi wars? It's possible there were only ever meant to be a handful of Ambassadors built anyway and it was just a stopgap because the Galaxy project wasn't moving forward as quickly as expected.
That last one might make some sense as the Ambassador does seam like a bit of the throwback the the old Connie and Excelsior, rather than a logical progression. Fair evidence that the design was made in a relative hurry from tried and true technology, not meant to push the envelope so much as fill a void.
Maybe they were built for a war with the Klingons that never came and when relations improved the line was terminated and resources reallocated to other ships.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2008, 09:08 AM   #35
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Also, as we well know, the later appearances of the model featured many alterations, such as redone ramscoops and lifeboat stations - but also changes that would be rather massive in in-universe terms, namely nudging the positions of the saucer and the nacelles vs. the secondary hull.

Perhaps the original design was outright faulty, requiring these expensive changes to work properly? Starfleet could have been planning on series production (at least on the silver-bullet scale of the later Galaxies), but decided to jump a generation of giant ships, perhaps first going for the stopgap Niagara in small numbers and then trying out the Galaxy.

We could similarly argue that the Sovereign design was faulty at first, requiring the structural changes from ST:FC to NEM, and reducing the numbers built or the pace of production.

Of course, the changes in both cases could be minor fiddling or "upgrades" rather than absolutely vital patches. But it does seem that the E-E was almost immediately subjected to a refit. Perhaps the same happened to the first Ambassadors, save for NCC-1701-C, or after NCC-1701-C's demise.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26 2008, 04:22 PM   #36
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Timo wrote: View Post
We could similarly argue that the Sovereign design was faulty at first, requiring the structural changes from ST:FC to NEM, and reducing the numbers built or the pace of production.
Assuming that's true, then it's not surprising that we see LaForge commanding a Galaxy class later in life. He got fed up with having to deal with the Sovereign's problems and having to refit them every few years!
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2008, 11:27 PM   #37
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

A quick and dirty explanation for the Enterprise E's altered appearance: Maybe she took part in a fleet-battle at some point and being THE ship of ships she suffered some serious damage which had to be delt with, so she was torn down and refit to Sovvie Block II standards.

Or maybe:

The damage incurred in FC required a lengthy yard stay. Here she was altered to Sovvie Block I-A standards.

How long between FC and Insuckrection??

After the battles in Insuckrection the ship is subjected to another lengthy yard overhaul, while in the yard she is refitted to Sovvie Block II standards and given a serious upgrade in firepower.

Post refit she sees combat duty mopping up twords the end of the Dominion War and its aftermath. After a year or two of near constent combat and "firepower diplomacy" she enters the yard AGAIN for a refit, and this is the configuration we see in Nem.

The Sovvie is a hanger-queen design in my RPG universe, it was built rapidly using bleeding edge methods and materials and fitted with a mixture of old and new technology... it was intended to get a battle-capable ship to the front lines ahead of the "next Borg incrusion" but the few that were built proved to be tricky at best, with the Enterprise requiring over a year of shakedown and return trips to the yard to iron out some of the more serious flaws. The original Sovvie and the two other non-canon ships were the same way.

During combat operations they proved difficult to repair in the field due to the mismatched generations of technology (some key systems were built from scratch and there were no spare parts in the field) and exotic hull materials made welding/bonding difficult without special equipment.

Lastly, due to thier intended role as front-line units they routinly got the crap kicked out of them, often vigorously... leading to the problems mentioned above being maginifed several dozen times.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2008, 09:05 AM   #38
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Sooooo...the Centaur was Renaissance-class, right?
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 06:44 PM   #39
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Wrong.

Seriously, those DS9 kitbashes were never meant to be taken seriously as bona fide starship classes, while the conjectural classes were. As you keep saying, Rev, wouldn't you rather have an original design for these classes instead of some kitbash that a 10 year old kid could have built?
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 08:25 PM   #40
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

For most of the DS9 kit-bashes, this is true. I just have a soft spot for the Centaur.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 08:29 PM   #41
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Me, I like the Yeager a lot. And the Elkins is conceptually interesting as well - it only needs a little more work on the nacelles. Nothing really wrong with the TOS movie style "heavy destroyer", either. And the two Excelsior/Miranda kitbashes were cool counterparts to good old Ptolemy. And the three-naceller had potential.

...Really, those 'bashes are far more attractive to me than most of the CGI ships of ST:FC.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2008, 10:26 PM   #42
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

I hate the Yeager. In fact I hate both of the intrepid bashes. Try as I might I can't think up a logical justification for either designs. The best I can do is that they were cast off hulls and used as counter intelligence to make the Dominion think they had these different ships in operation. Like the bogus inflatable landing craft used to confuse German aerial reconnaissance shortly before D-Day.

As for the FC ships, I've taken quite a shine to the Steamrunner ever since I decided it was a medium transport/freighter. Akira is all kinds of cool and the Sabre (or is it Saber?) is compact and functional enough. A nice replacement for the Oberth-Class (future TNG remastered artists take note!) The Norway is a bit of something and nothing; can't really get a handle on it's function.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 07:14 AM   #43
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

In fact I hate both of the intrepid bashes. Try as I might I can't think up a logical justification for either designs.
Try these for size.

The Yeager could simply be to Intrepid what Miranda was to Constitution. Nacelles down rather than up, a less substantial secondary hull that lacks the big deflector dish, and two shuttlebays (the ribbed, angled vertical surfaces at the aft corners) rather than one. IMHO, the two look attractive enough side by side...

The Elkins, with its two deflectors, could in turn be an anti-Borg deflector weapon experiment, and indeed something of a "kitbash" rather than an established Starfleet design. An offensive nav deflector might be useful in conventional warfare, too, punching big holes in near-stationary targets in a lethal left-right-left-right series...

The Norway is a bit of something and nothing; can't really get a handle on it's function.
The back-front-sliding nacelles make me think that this thing needs to gradually adjust for a change in its CoG. Also, the longitudal booms that support the pylons look a bit like rails to me. So, since this ship first appears in company of the Steamrunners which I, too, think of as assault transports, perhaps the Norway is an assault barge carrier? There could be eight very massive barges stacked between the booms, and every time the Norway "lays an egg", the nacelles move one notch for perfect warp trim. (The nacelle topsides appear to have nine circles, which might be the plasma leadthroughs for each position.)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 01:47 PM   #44
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

The main problem with the ships (besides that they're just plain ol' ugly), is of course the scale issues. Of the six kitbashes, only the Constitution saucer and two nacelles are consistent with logical starship design.

Curry/Raging Queen: There's absolutely no good reason why the ships' nacelles were giganto-sized versions of the Connie nacelles.

Yeager: Upscaling the Maquis raider to double or triple its original size, and then slapping it onto an Intrepid saucer is just too ridiculous to take seriously, and trying to find logical reasons to justify this is really pulling strings.

Elkins: I can live with an Intrepid saucer with a secondary hull that came from an F-15, if only because the way it was kitbashed it looks nothing like an F-15. But the oversized runabout pylons look out of place, not to mention the Connie nacelles, which have absolutely no business being built onto a ship that advanced. Perhaps if the kitbasher had used the runabout nacelles to go along with the pylons, the design might be forgivable, but alas, he didn't. But then of course you'd have extremely upscaled nacelles again.

3-nacelled Excelsior: Although the only upscaling done was the use of the Connie pylons, the design is just, BAD. I mean come on, the pod that connects the upper nacelle pylons is hanging half off the ship!

Centaur: Although there's an upscaling issue with the Miranda weapons pod and connectors, the coolness of the design makes it forgivable
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30 2008, 02:32 PM   #45
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Renaissance class U.S.S. Aries

Curry/Raging Queen: There's absolutely no good reason why the ships' nacelles were giganto-sized versions of the Connie nacelles.
So simply assume that the saucer was smaller than the Excelsior one - easy to do when there are no docking ports, scant portholes, and even the bridge is missing. And then assume that the same type of saucer was used on the Centaur, on which the Miranda bridge module nicely supports the idea of a small saucer, and the torpedo pack underneath offers further proof.

Yeager: Upscaling the Maquis raider to double or triple its original size, and then slapping it onto an Intrepid saucer is just too ridiculous to take seriously
Why insist that the nondescript secondary hull is a "Maquis raider", though? The real life is chock full of examples of naval merchant vessels that look exactly like each other, down to the shape of the hull, the cranes, and the superstructure, only one is three times the size of the other. And essentially, a destroyer, a cruiser and even a battleship in WWII would often have been scale models of each other.

The "Maquis raider" hull has no scale-establishing features as such, save perhaps for the aft torpedo tubes. And there's nothing wrong with large torpedo launcher muzzles for standard caliber torps, as the Galaxy class nicely demonstrates.

And I'd like to believe in at least two different sizes from the manufacturer of those Maquis ships anyway - the small two-seater flown by Ro, and the large thirty-seater flown by Eddington and Chakotay.

In short, the end result IMHO perfectly justifies the means...

3-nacelled Excelsior: Although the only upscaling done was the use of the Connie pylons, the design is just, BAD. I mean come on, the pod that connects the upper nacelle pylons is hanging half off the ship!
Oh, I think this looks no worse than the undercut of Constitution secondary hulls. And some of the (lacking) details can always be attributed to battle damage.

The basic idea of an Excelsior that lacks a secondary hull, in effect an "Excelsior Miranda", sounds plausible as such. That there'd be a third nacelle added requires some explaining, but I'm willing to go for that if it allows me to believe in the basic concept.

Centaur: Although there's an upscaling issue with the Miranda weapons pod and connectors, the coolness of the design makes it forgivable
Me, I'd prefer downscaling the saucer. After all, something the size of an Excelsior shouldn't have had that much trouble with one tiny Jemmie battlebug, and shouldn't necessarily have run even from three.

As for the saucertop "shuttlebay" (and the equivalent structures on the Curry/Raging Queen), no necessity of thinking that they are shuttlebays, and going through the scaling hoops that would result. They could just as well be stylish deflector dishes, what with them pointing forward like that and all.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble

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 01:12 AM.

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