Miranda class ships are still in use during DS9, with far later registry #'s. Some designs are just solid and capable of being adapted to later tech. Excelsior class ships too.
Ship continuity.
- Thread starter Jon holder
- Start date
Miranda class ships are still in use during DS9, with far later registry #'s. Some designs are just solid and capable of being adapted to later tech. Excelsior class ships too.
Why would they grow old, design-wise? Other starships are in a rat race against competing starships. The Oberths are in a rat race against the universe only - their development speed should by all rights be glacial, their expiration date geological ages in the future.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
But both of those are new in TOS movie era. Just like the Oberth. Or that's what I choose to believe. So in DS9 they're hundredish-year-old designs (which is already stretching it) not 150-year-old ones.
Yup, pretty neutral there. But only one number ever made it into dialogue in TOS.
Few spoken references in TNG, either. The NCC-1305-E thing was obviously of dramatic importance, but otherwise registries just weren't worth mentioning at all.
Oh, I don't believe in "thought" either - we know 1031 is but a Halloween reference and all. It's just that DSC is trailblazing simply by barging through the woods blindfolded, creating this never-before-beaten path.
It's a very odd assumption to make, is all. How does it help with anything? And why believe in a major departure from all sorts of precedent, including that driving the writers (i.e. the real world)?
Oh, and Longinus:
The Miranda apparently isn't - the Reliant is listed in the "Court Martial" chart already at least.
Might be the usual lifetime of a design (and, within limits, a spaceframe) is a bit less than a century. So stuff inherited from the Romulan War might have been just recently replaced in the 2009 movie, and that stuff would only start getting long in the nacelles when DSC premiers.
Timo Saloniemi
It's just the outward design that's the same. If something works, why change it? I know we'd get bored if they didn't introduce "kewl new ships" to the shows we watch, but in-universe, what the hell?
Going back to the Navy Destroyers, they don't look much different than they did 70 or 80 years ago, but they get built differently, have different tech inside.
Though, the Oberth class is an ugly, strange looking design, but it must work for Starfleet.
Since we also have the USS Eagle NCC-956 per ST VI, I've begun wondering in recent months - finally! - if the Constitution class isn't older than we knew.
That is barely readable. Might as well be 1884. I literally can't tell.
Because using same hull for 150 years is ludicrous. It is twice as long as your real life examples. So why assume such when the canon information doesn't force us to do so? The registry fundamentalists make such bizarre assumptions. To me using the same design for 150 years is way more implausible than the registries not being sequential.
Those real life examples are in the ocean and prone to rusting whereas the Oberth type hull is built from ultimatium and duranium and other fantastic metals that wouldn't break down the same way.
It's just a design. Why constantly change to a new one if it isn't necessary? It's the technology driving the ship that needs updating. Better and more efficient warp tech, better computer systems, like that.
Now if SF ever went with slipstream tech, then they'd most likely have to design hulls that were more streamlined, but a clunky science ship hardly needs to be streamlined.
Hull is not just a shell. It is made to that shape for a purpose, it is informed by the technology contained within. You can't just plug modern engine in a model T Ford and call it good.
The Klingon thing on ENT was a fuck up. The makers of the show said so, and I choose to treat it as such. It is like using American tanks as WWII German tanks in some war films. We literally learn on Discovery that D7 is a new design.
And even if one would choose to take the D7 on ENT at face value, there is no need to invent similarly ludicrous lifespans for other ships.
Not a good comparison. A starship hull really is just a shell. It's corridors and rooms and Jeffries Tubes. Assumedly some areas are modular and can be swapped out for different uses. The warp core is ejectable, therefore removeable. The warp nacelles can be swapped out. The bridge can (as far as we know) be swapped out.
And again, an Oberth class built in the 24th century is built with 24th century systems as far as the power distribution network goes. It's not like they're using an actual 100+ year old hull.
And to reiterate, the Oberth is a weird design, but we saw it (and Excelsiors and Mirandas) used as late as we did, so there's no use arguing about it.
There is use arguing about some people wanting to add speculative 50 years to the lifespan of the design! And certainly starship hulls are designed in certain way for some purpose. We may not know exactly what the reasons are, but I really don't think that the shape is immaterial. You just cant cram the different tech in the same shape and expect ti to work.
You don't reckon it's the same basic tech (warp drive, sensors, impulse engines,etc), just more advanced? If nothing else, more advanced usually means smaller, both in real life and what we've seen on ST. And again, I would never say they're using a 100 year old hull, just a proven 100 year old design. I realize it was on screen mainly out of laziness on the part of the showrunners, but on screen nonetheless.
Every Klingon design seems to span centuries, though, with minimal variation (the 22nd century BoP really is the same as the 24th century one). And that's a characteristic of basically all the players in Trek. There indeed is no need to invent lifespans of centuries - they're explicit already. If anything, we have to wonder why anybody would ever stop building a ship of a design that is proven to work, when so amply witnessing that others who don't stop tend to thrive.
It would be pretty odd for a design to change as a thing. Here on Earth, ship designs have tended to span two-three centuries or so, with some spanning thousands of years and showing no sign of becoming outdated yet...
Timo Saloniemi
And T-Ford uses a combustion engine, just like modern cars. And again, this was not about 100-year-old design, this was about some people wanting to make Oberth 50 years older than that to justify Grissom's low registry number.
It is not, your premise is false.
Well the registry # thing is an old and unwinnable argument anyway. Maybe the initial Oberths including the Grissom were refit? Then the later ones were built under the new specs same as Constitution II's.
Or it was just that old at the time. A science ship usually doesn't get into battles or high speed pursuits. It goes from planet to planet and does surveys and whatnot. It might be quite capable of lasting 50 years (if that's the correct age range).
Or it is a relatively new ship with a low registry number. Just like Discovery and Constellation.
