The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[137th Gebirg]

Personally I think Enterprise B was a one off ship. It was experimental and it, unlike the actual Excelsior Class design, was largely a failure and no other ships like it were built. Eventually it was retired and replaced with Enterprise C. It was placed in reserve and when the Dominion War started, they pulled it out, gave it a new name and registry, and put it back to work.

Actually, we saw the Lakota (DS9, 4x12: "Paradise Lost") as being an E-B-type in the late 24th century (2372, specifically), so those variants, while certainly not as common as the baseline Excelsiors, have been around just as long.

 

[yotsuya]

Actually, we saw the Lakota (DS9, 4x12: "Paradise Lost") as being an E-B-type in the late 24th century (2372, specifically), so those variants, while certainly not as common as the baseline Excelsiors, have been around just as long.

I'm saying there was only one. The Lakota IS the Enterprise B. My personal theory anyway.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Renaming an Enterprise to something else? Considering how highly esteemed the name Enterprise is within Starfleet, and also considering the spaceframe of that particular ship would have to be nearly 80 years old (assuming Generations took place in the year 2293 and Paradise Lost took place in 2372) and Admiral Morrow wanted to mothball E-Nill for only being 20 years old (an incorrect number by any measure, but just for the sake of argument...), I would personally think it quite unlikely that the Lakota was (in-universe) a re-branded E-B.

It would almost imply that the E-B's mission under the command of Capt. Harriman would have been so immensely disastrous - like, accidentally blowing up a whole star system or something - that its name would need to be stricken from the Starfleet ships roster (quickly renamed Lakota) and an Ambassador later rolled into production with the E-C name - that of Captain Garrett - maybe not immediately after, to let the black mark on the Enterprise name settle for a couple of decades. I mean, yeah, Harriman was a bit of a dolt but would it have really been that bad?

Then again, a good re-branding does erase a multitude of sins and ineptitude. Just ask ValueJet...er...JetBlue about that...

Sorry, though, bit of a stretch with that one, I think...

 

[Dukhat]

I also think the Lakota was formerly the Enterprise-B, but not because it was some kind of failure. Rather, precisely because the Enterprise name had become synonymous with Starfleet and the Federation, it was decided that the ship's name needed to be carried on by multiple new ships every generation or so, no matter the condition of the previous vessel to carry the name. That's essentially what happened with the Enterprise-A. It was a perfectly good ship and was decommissioned for no good reason other than that the Enterprise-B was about to be commissioned. So the Enterprise-A was probably renamed and put back into service as well. Since there are lots of Excelsiors still in operation during TNG and DS9, there would have been no reason to build a new ship past the Enterprise-B unless:

1. The Enterprise-B was damaged beyond repair, lost, or destroyed.

2. The Enterprise-B got so old that its systems couldn’t be replaced and a new ship was needed. (unlikely since we saw even newer Excelsiors in TNG and DS9)

3. The Enterprise-C was commissioned and the Enterprise-B was decommissioned and recommissioned under a new name and registry number.

I don't like the idea that four Enterprises (Nil, B, C, & D) were destroyed. It's bad enough that three of them met that fate. I'd rather believe that it was more a political decision that Starfleet retire the ship after a certain period of time to make way for a new version as the 'face' of Starfleet, especially considering that by TNG the Enterprise-D was considered the flagship of the Federation.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I think Probert's Ambassador Class (which was actually an early draft of the Enterprise D, which is why the full color painting was made) was the original design.

I like the direction of your post overall, but Probert said in an interview with Trekyards that the Ambassador was designed by interpolating the drawings, and he explained the painting was both for his reference and also because he had thought it could be used in "Encounter at Farpoint" for the older ship, but was denied because it was felt that Star Trek should use models, and not paintings, for ships. I think he dispels the idea that this painting was a draft for the Galaxy class, but I don't remember that for sure. Here's the link, and Trekyards recreated the shot using the painting at about 3:10.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Basically because they reused the model so much they took an outdated design and turned it into the most successful ship design in Trek history. Fun how things work out like that.

This is a strange fact about the show to me: a model of ship, created for its first appearance to be the new, experimental design that the audience is supposed to be skeptical about, ends up becoming the most filmed ship design of the entire run of Star Trek thus far...all because the (2nd, smaller) model of that design was easy to film...and because it looked on TV obviously like a starship, but obviously was not Kirk's Enterprise...

 

[137th Gebirg]

I am curious, though, which ship type was seen more on screen, the Excelsior or the Miranda. Both had seen frequent action up to and through the late 24th century and we saw mass quantities of both engage (and explode) during the DW. Additionally, the Miranda had many variants off the core design (Bozeman, Saratoga, Brattain, Trial, Antares, etc., etc.), whereas the Excelsior really only had the E-B variant. I’m thinking the Miranda is probably the more prolific of all designs ever shown on-screen.

 

[Norsehound]

I think the longevity of the Excelsior could be tied up to a lot of new features being piled into The Great Experiment, so much so that even though Transwarp failed it had a lot of other features (such as gen 0 tech that would become the okudagrams/LCARS), it was still a beefy cruiser...

That and Starfleet refused to let such a massive investiture of resources go to waste. It was cheaper to perform a major drive overhaul on a failed prototype than design an entirely new cruiser, especially when so much else of the Excelsior worked wonderfully.

As an aside, my headcannon holds that the Constellation class was the "ordinary" successor to the Constitutions. Where the Exclesiors were built with all-new technologies, the Constellation makes use out of the Enterprise-refit components and technologies, pushing them to their limit. They didn't wear updates as gracefully as the Exelsiors did as a result, making Constellations into clunkers by 2364 while the Excelsiors aged more gracefully.

 

[publiusr]

The hardest part of this whole process was working from photos and trying to interpret how that would translate to the orthographic views. And how that in turn would turn back into a 3D image. And when someone takes your drawings and puts them in 3D and you can see how you did...

That is very nice!

I wonder if a print can be made of your specs
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-d-printer-physical.html
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-05-technique-mold-3d-medical-implants.html

You going to be finishing up the refit drawings?

I like the direction of your post overall, but Probert said in an interview with Trekyards that the Ambassador was designed by interpolating the drawings.

The closest I've seen to the wall-design was the council class here:...scroll down a bit.
https://www.treknology.org/history3.htm

More
https://www.treknology.org/new/council-jef1.jpg
https://www.treknology.org/new/council-jef2.jpg

I think that deserves a CGI and physical model.

 

[yotsuya]

Renaming an Enterprise to something else? Considering how highly esteemed the name Enterprise is within Starfleet, and also considering the spaceframe of that particular ship would have to be nearly 80 years old (assuming Generations took place in the year 2293 and Paradise Lost took place in 2372) and Admiral Morrow wanted to mothball E-Nill for only being 20 years old (an incorrect number by any measure, but just for the sake of argument...), I would personally think it quite unlikely that the Lakota was (in-universe) a re-branded E-B.

It would almost imply that the E-B's mission under the command of Capt. Harriman would have been so immensely disastrous - like, accidentally blowing up a whole star system or something - that its name would need to be stricken from the Starfleet ships roster (quickly renamed Lakota) and an Ambassador later rolled into production with the E-C name - that of Captain Garrett - maybe not immediately after, to let the black mark on the Enterprise name settle for a couple of decades. I mean, yeah, Harriman was a bit of a dolt but would it have really been that bad?

Then again, a good re-branding does erase a multitude of sins and ineptitude. Just ask ValueJet...er...JetBlue about that...

Sorry, though, bit of a stretch with that one, I think...

I'm going by what the US and other modern navies do. Ship names are not permanent. Some ships go by multiple names during their career. Others by one. 1701 would have been the ship that would never have gone by another name, It was famous. A and B were famous because of 1701. I believe both were retired, renamed, and put back into service. Kirk's final log has multiple meanings in TUC. In our world he is referring to TNG. In his world the words imply that the ship will be laid up for a while and then back in service with a new command crew. Remember, they hastily renamed A from what it was originally for TVH. So that ship has already had 2 names. It would be a simple matter to put it in dock, give it a minor overhaul, change the registry and name, and send it back out. I was only in service for 7 years at that point. That would be a waste to retire the ship completely. And with Generations we find out that Ent B was in the works and had probably been named for quite some time.

The US Navy has shown great reluctance to have an old Enterprise around when a new one is built. CV-6 was torn up and scrapped before CVN-65 was anywhere close to finished. And CVN-80 hasn't even been laid down yet and CVN-65 is awaiting its break up. So postulating that A was retired and rename and B was retired and renamed, as each was replaced with a new ship named Enterprise, makes a lot of sense. And they even officially renamed USS Constitution in the 1920's because they wanted to reuse that name for a new ship. That class became the Lexington and Saratoga carriers and the name was not use and it was returned. So even a great legend can get renamed in the US Navy.

 

[yotsuya]

I like the direction of your post overall, but Probert said in an interview with Trekyards that the Ambassador was designed by interpolating the drawings, and he explained the painting was both for his reference and also because he had thought it could be used in "Encounter at Farpoint" for the older ship, but was denied because it was felt that Star Trek should use models, and not paintings, for ships. I think he dispels the idea that this painting was a draft for the Galaxy class, but I don't remember that for sure. Here's the link, and Trekyards recreated the shot using the painting at about 3:10.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It is hard to know what to believe. Memory is a fickle thing. So is language. A great many people have given one description one place an for a different place have given a seemingly completely different description. So I would not assume that one is right and one is wrong, only that there is a bit of truth to each version.

This is a strange fact about the show to me: a model of ship, created for its first appearance to be the new, experimental design that the audience is supposed to be skeptical about, ends up becoming the most filmed ship design of the entire run of Star Trek thus far...all because the (2nd, smaller) model of that design was easy to film...and because it looked on TV obviously like a starship, but obviously was not Kirk's Enterprise...

Yes. But where do we get the idea that the Excelsior was a failure? That is not stated in the movies. Scotty sabotages the Excelsior so the Enterprise can get away, but that does not make the project a failure. I fist read that it was a failure on the Ingram plans. I think the reuse of the model is a good indicator that it was not a failure. Perhaps not the runaway success that Capt. Styles hoped, but enough that the ship was commissioned with a regular registry.

I pesonally see Excelsior, Ingram, and Constellation as competitors for which ship can replaced the aging Constitution Class design. I think Constellation might have taken some of the deep space exploration missions, with its larger hanger capacity. Or perhaps ended up on colonization duty. But in the long run the Excelsior takes over the role and is the Starfleet workhorse.

 

[RichT]

My own headcanon is that the Excelsior wasn't a failure and its warp drive was the first TNG-style warp drive that resulted in recalibrating the warp scale. "Transwarp" was just a 23rd century Starfleet designation for any next-generation warp drive technology.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I am curious, though, which ship type was seen more on screen, the Excelsior or the Miranda.

I thought the same thing, but Memory Alpha claims it is the Excelsior. I could believe either one was most shown, because the reasons I gave above apply to both.

As an aside, my headcannon holds that the Constellation class was the "ordinary" successor to the Constitutions.

It seems that the Miranda, Constellation, and Excelsior, all were in the running for that in the movie era.

And with Generations we find out that Ent B was in the works and had probably been named for quite some time.

I think this was an awkward choice in that movie, since Kirk says his ship will get an new crew and then not long after we see a new ship instead,

And CVN-80 hasn't even been laid down yet and CVN-65 is awaiting its break up

They really should put it in a museum.

It is hard to know what to believe. Memory is a fickle thing. So is language. A great many people have given one description one place an for a different place have given a seemingly completely different description. So I would not assume that one is right and one is wrong, only that there is a bit of truth to each version.

I cited an actual video of Probert himself explaining what the painting was. What is your source for the claim that the painting in the video is a early version on 1701-D?

I may have referenced a different painting from the one you intended us to consider. You may be referencing another painting done around 1980 in which Probert, after completing his part of the work on the refit, envisioned what he would do if he could design an Enterprise from scratch. That painting already looked like the Galaxy class, even though the Excelsior, Miranda, etc had not even been envisioned yet.

He talks about that earlier painting in this video, starting at 11:14, and the painting is shown at 11:28. He goes into great detail about why he made the choices he made.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But where do we get the idea that the Excelsior was a failure?

There is no onscreen indication that it was a failure. I was talking about what the audience is "supposed" to "feel" when they see the ship for the first time, looking only at the context of that movie alone. In Star Trek III, it is a new unproven design that is put "against" the hero ship. In the greater context of all of Star Trek, the most shown ship class onscreen could not have been a failure in every area.

I think the reuse of the model is a good indicator that it was not a failure.

Looking at the series as a whole, that fits.

I pesonally see Excelsior, Ingram, and Constellation as competitors for which ship can replaced the aging Constitution Class design.

I won't comment on the Ingram (named after planet Ingram-B??) since it was not onscreen that I know of. But Excelsior, Constellation, Miranda all seem to be put in a position to replace parts of the role once covered by just one class.

 

[RichT]

It seems that the Miranda, Constellation, and Excelsior, all were in the running for that in the movie era.

I don't think the Miranda class was ever intended to replace the Constitution class. I think she's the reliable workhorse to the Constitution's thoroughbred racehorse. Not as advanced perhaps, not as fast, but less resource-intensive, with easier to maintain systems, and with the option of alternate weaponry configurations (the Reliant has four torpedo launchers to the Enterprise's two, though she has fewer phaser arrays due to a more compact hull arrangement).

Likewise I'd say that the Constellation was, if anything, intended to replace the Miranda, as a class of ship where robust endurance was prioritised over bleeding edge performance, as the last hurrah of the refit Constitution generation of technology as Starfleet moved firmly into the post-Constitution/Excelsior era.

What's interesting to me is the lack of Excelsior-, Ambassador, or Galaxy-generation equivalents of the Miranda and the Constellation class. There's the USS Centaur of course, every inch an "Excelsiorised Miranda" – but she's a one-off. Given how successful Mirandas and Excelsiors turned out to be individually I'd almost expect Federation space to be crawling with Centaurs. You could argue that the Nebula is a Galaxy-generation equivalent of the Miranda, sort of, perhaps, maybe?

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Given how successful Mirandas and Excelsiors turned out to be individually I'd almost expect Federation space to be crawling with Centaurs.

In reality DS9 should have had a lot of these, but they just kept using the Miranda model and I don't know how to justify it in-universe.
Here's is where I add the obligatory reminder that the Centaur was originally envisioned as smaller and the Miranda parts taken as the scale. However, given the obvious Excelsior parts on the model, the existence of the Centaur (or something like it) as a Miranda-like vessel based on Excelsior technology should be considered canon in my opinion. I cannot say the same for the Ambassador. I guess the Nebula works alongside the Galaxy, but since it has a secondary hull it would not really be much smaller internally.

 

[RichT]

In reality DS9 should have had a lot of these, but they just kept using the Miranda model and I don't know how to justify it in-universe.

Another headcanon I have here is that we know by the TNG era Mirandas were heavily automated. Presumably in the 2280s they had crews around the same size as the Constitution class (so 400ish), but by the 2360s they were down to fewer than a tenth of this (the Lantree had a crew of 26, the Brattain had a crew of 34). So by the Dominion War I imagine that Mirandas are entirely automated as weapons drones, probably slaved to the bigger ships like Nebulas or Galaxies. It's why nobody seems to be terribly upset that the Mirandas are so much Dominion cannon fodder – that was the whole point. It also justifies having such antique ships fighting on the front line.

 

[yotsuya]

My own headcanon is that the Excelsior wasn't a failure and its warp drive was the first TNG-style warp drive that resulted in recalibrating the warp scale. "Transwarp" was just a 23rd century Starfleet designation for any next-generation warp drive technology.

I totally agree. That is my headcanon as well.

 

[yotsuya]

The Miranda class is clearly designed to fill a different role. It replaces the Hermes class scout and the Saladin class destroyer. Those are canon through their reference in on screen displays and in background dialog. Constellation and Excelsior replace the Constitution class. I envision Constellation doing the hard core exploring while the Excelsior filled the more flashy roles. Eventually Excelsior filled them all. Hathaway was retired early on and Stargazer was also an old ship that probably would have been retired. We don't see too many of them even though the model was build early in TNG.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I always found the Miranda’s to be a lot more flexible, mission-wise, than their Connie contemporaries. Their rollbars can be modified to have different kinds of mission-specific modules, allowing them to serve in a variety of roles. We’ve seen numerous canonical configurations on-screen to indicate this. The Connies seemed to serve one purpose, being deep space exploration. It totally makes sense that the design would perpetuate for many decades. The M1911 .45 Colt pistol was the same service weapon used by the US Armed Forces up until it was finally replaced by the Beretta M92F during Gulf War I. Why change what works?

 

[Norsehound]

The simplest explanation for the longevity of the Miranda and Excelsior is that they outlived their potential replacements. Both classes must have enjoyed the surplus of parts from the designs being built for so long, and every technological upgrade had the previous generation to fall back on in case of problems.

My headcannon also believes that the Miranda and Excelsior are "wartime" surplus. Like most modern-day cold war developments they were built for a hypothetical wartime engagement with the Klingons, so they had to be durable (Excelsior) or easy to function (Miranda). These factors kept them in circulation as peacetime designs came and went, bowing to either excessive specialization or unjustifiable construction costs. For example, I can believe after time starfleet compared the Ambassadors to the nth generation Excelsior and picked the latter to divert resources to, since they were cheaper and did the job already to a satisfactory degree.

Following this yarn, perhaps Starfleet eased into an era of 'super prototypes'- small production runs of highly specialized ships and all-powerful flagships. It's probably this kind of environment that spawned the Galaxy Class, which is both. The backbone of starfleet- the aging Excelsior and Miranda classes- could persist. They did well enough in the wars against the Cardassians- a contemporary adversary- but threats from the Borg and Dominion finally forced the classes out of their comfort zone.

 

[DEWLine]

I am increasingly of the mind that the Excelsior class pre-dated the transwarp project...?