Starship Museums: why?

[BillJ]

My hot take: The Constitution-Class is actually kind of a shit design and meant to be more of a technology testbed. They were never intended to be in service for an extended period, they were intended to burn fast and hot as a test platform for new exotic technologies.

This is blatantly false when compared to what we see. They spent near 40 years as Starfleet’s top of the line class. We know it also had extended operations into the 24th century, from “The Best of Both Worlds”. Originally, the Constellation class was supposed to be Constitution, from “The Battle”.

 

[UssGlenn]

Planes are for transportation. Cruise ships are for fun. You don't take a cruise ship to visit a relative across the ocean. You book a flight.

You've forgotten abut the existence of the Queen Mary 2. While occasionally used as a cruse ship, she isn't one. She's the last Ocean Liner. And it's a comparable cost to flying transatlantic. It takes longer, but is way more comfortable. If you have the time it's the superior form of transportation.

 

[evilchumlee]

This is blatantly false when compared to what we see. They spent near 40 years as Starfleet’s top of the line class. We know it also had extended operations into the 24th century, from “The Best of Both Worlds”. Originally, the Constellation class was supposed to be Constitution, from “The Battle”.

Depends on what you perceive as "extended period". 40 years doesn't seem like all that long. The BoBW Connie may be somewhat of an outlier... there was an Oberth there too... that may have literally been a museum ship they pressed into service (general background is that it was a training ship).

I had the opposite impression, that the Constitutions were the spartan and resilient long-range explorers designed to patrol the frontier for years without support and survive threats people hadn't imagined yet. They weren't flashy but they got the job done. And they did that job for at least 50 years (the Enterprise launched in 2245, the Enterprise A was decommissioned in 2293), though I don't think we have any information on how long the surviving ships were still in use after Undiscovered Country. Maybe they were around for 100 years too, they were just much older than the other classes.

My theory is that they kept making Mirandas and Oberths because there was no real need to design a newer model, but the Constitutions were outright replaced by the Excelsiors, which did the same thing except better. I guess the Sovereign class was the eventual Excelsior replacement, the Mirandas were finally replaced by the California class and the Oberths were replaced by the Nova class.

Also valid.

I have a bit more expanded take on Excelsiors and such. My theory is around WHAT the Khitomer Accords actually did, and I take on the possibilities is that it limited fleet numbers. It didn't got by "tonnage" like a modern day treaty might, it went by warp cores. A power can only build x-number of new warp cores. Existing warp cores are grandfathered in.

It helps to explain a few things. Why some ships were in operation forever. It helps explain the Frankenstein Kitbash fleet to an extent. It plays with my shorter explanation... ships like the Excelsior are just built really well, but in the addition to that, they were also built in such a way that it's difficult to transplant their warp cores into another vessel. It's why you get some kitbash Excelsior-types... the had parts of an Exelsior, enough to house the warp core, and then built out with whatever else they had available.

Constitutions might still be out there into the 24th century, but their warp cores are going to be old. They may well just be reaching the end of their effective life and have been getting phased out for some time.

In this case, Miranda's were never particularly great ships, but they weren't bad either. Their greatest benefit was that... they existed. Ripping out the warp core and trying to transplant it into a newer ship may have just been way too much of an effort over just using the existing vessel and keeping it going.

 

[BillJ]

Depends on what you perceive as "extended period". 40 years doesn't seem like all that long. The BoBW Connie may be somewhat of an outlier... there was an Oberth there too... that may have literally been a museum ship they pressed into service (general background is that it was a training ship).

The Excelsior had about forty to fifty years as a front line class, then the Ambassador class was introduced.

Ambassador only had twenty to thirty years, before the introduction of the Galaxy class, which only had seven years before the introduction of the Sovereign.

 

[evilchumlee]

The Excelsior had about forty to fifty years as a front line class, then the Ambassador class was introduced.

Ambassador only had twenty to thirty years, before the introduction of the Galaxy class, which only had seven years before the introduction of the Sovereign.

We don't entirely know that these ships are flat out replacements. We are slightly biased in terms of what the Enterprise is.

The Sovereign-Class isn't necessarily a replacement of the Galaxy-Class. They're really intended for two different roles. The Galaxy was clearly designed as a long-range explorer, whereas the Sovereign is more combat focused. Just because the Enterprise-E was a Sovereign-Class doesn't mean they aren't still using Galaxy-Class ships... although I will give that by 2401, they seem to be gone, given there none at Earth. That also doesn't necessarily mean anything, but at least its a data point.

By and large the Ambassador-Class seems to have something of a failure. It never really shows up outside of being the Enterprise-C.

 

[BillJ]

By and large the Ambassador-Class seems to have something of a failure. It never really shows up outside of being the Enterprise-C.

The Horatio, is mentioned as being Ambassador class, in “Conspiracy”. There is also the Zhukov in “Data’s Day”.

There’s a few other mentions and appearances sprinkled through the shows.

 

[at Quark's]

Should have sent them to Andromeda or the far future. Someplace they would've really been out of reach of Trek elements. Maybe something more primitive where there are very few, if any, space faring societies.

I think the problem really is with the Enterprise-A that traveled to the center of a galaxy within a day. That violated established (warp) speed limits and narratively, there's also no good reason why it had to be the 'center of the galaxy', it could just have been some local energy anomaly.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

We don't entirely know that these ships are flat out replacements. We are slightly biased in terms of what the Enterprise is.

Yeah, I got the impression that the Ambassador class and the Galaxy class were an attempt to make a more prestigious 'mobile starbase' kind of ship with more internal volume and comfort than a typical explorer vessel. I can imagine them being built in limited numbers, which is why we see a lot more Excelsiors around.

I think the problem really is with the Enterprise-A that traveled to the center of a galaxy within a day. That violated established (warp) speed limits and narratively, there's also no good reason why it had to be the 'center of the galaxy', it could just have been some local energy anomaly.

The "Planet of Galactic Peace" didn't turn out to be very peaceful, so maybe "The Centre of the Galaxy" isn't very central.

 

[at Quark's]

The "Planet of Galactic Peace" didn't turn out to be very peaceful, so maybe "The Centre of the Galaxy" isn't very central.

Could be.

The 'god' there isn't really all that Godlike either, after all.

 

[UssGlenn]

there's also no good reason why it had to be the 'center of the galaxy', it could just have been some local energy anomaly.

That wouldn't be suitable as a place for "God" to hang out. Some people get to be in his backyard and others are on the other side of the Galaxy. At least the center is in the middle. You could have the destination be some kind of traveling anomaly that moves around the galaxy, and perhaps that's why it's hard to find. This was before they came up with the Nexus, so the idea would be available.

 

[Dukhat]

We don't entirely know that these ships are flat out replacements. We are slightly biased in terms of what the Enterprise is.

The Sovereign-Class isn't necessarily a replacement of the Galaxy-Class. They're really intended for two different roles. The Galaxy was clearly designed as a long-range explorer, whereas the Sovereign is more combat focused. Just because the Enterprise-E was a Sovereign-Class doesn't mean they aren't still using Galaxy-Class ships... although I will give that by 2401, they seem to be gone, given there none at Earth. That also doesn't necessarily mean anything, but at least its a data point.

By and large the Ambassador-Class seems to have something of a failure. It never really shows up outside of being the Enterprise-C.

That's really just speculation. The Galaxy class was used both for exploration and for war. Same with the Sovereign. Heck, even the original TOS Constitution class was used both for exploration and for wargames. There has really never been any correlation between a ship's class and its mission. The Miranda, for example, was used as a warship, a scout ship, a supply ship, and a science vessel.

Also, the idea that one ship class replaced another is also on shaky ground, at least as far as what we see on screen is concerned. Logically, the Galaxy class should have replaced whatever the previous iteration of starship design that was in service before it. Otherwise, why design a new ship? Yet we see many more older vessels still in service than the newer ones.

And if we go only by what see see on screen, then the Ambassador class was either:

a. A failure,

b. Not produced in mass numbers (which, quite frankly, the bulk of Starfleet's ship classes aren't),

c. Were produced in mass numbers but were all lost or destroyed in past wars or conflicts,

d. Were either produced in mass numbers or weren't, and were just fine but off screen on other missions and we just didn't see them.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Horatio, is mentioned as being Ambassador class, in “Conspiracy”. There is also the Zhukov in “Data’s Day”.

The Excalibur in Redemption, the Yamaguchi in Emissary.

 

[Dukhat]

The Excalibur in Redemption, the Yamaguchi in Emissary.

And if we take non-canon but 'official' works into account, the Adelphi, the Exeter, the Gandhi, and the Valdemar.

 

[evilchumlee]

That's really just speculation. The Galaxy class was used both for exploration and for war. Same with the Sovereign. Heck, even the original TOS Constitution class was used both for exploration and for wargames. There has really never been any correlation between a ship's class and its mission. The Miranda, for example, was used as a warship, a scout ship, a supply ship, and a science vessel.

Yes, it's speculation.

I do believe that the ships being used for war isn't necessarily related to the intended role of the vessel, but rather as a symptom of Starfleet's fairly strong stance that it's not a military, but will begrudgingly act as one when it needs to. They don't really make ships with the express purpose of combat in general, and when they do they still kind of PR them a bit... like the Defiant being an "escort".

Just about every ship seems to have a secondary combat role when it absolutely has to have one.

Also, the idea that one ship class replaced another is also on shaky ground, at least as far as what we see on screen is concerned. Logically, the Galaxy class should have replaced whatever the previous iteration of starship design that was in service before it. Otherwise, why design a new ship? Yet we see many more older vessels still in service than the newer ones.

I don't think it necessarily follows logic that a new ship design has to replace a previous ship design. It can just be... a new ship design. Even if it a new design IS a replacement for an older design, that also doesn't mean the older ships are just tossed in the garbage. I drive a car from 2014. There have been several new models to replace it since... they didn't just recall my car and tell me it has to go in the trash. I'm still driving it, despite a new option being available...

And if we go only by what see see on screen, then the Ambassador class was either:

a. A failure,

b. Not produced in mass numbers (which, quite frankly, the bulk of Starfleet's ship classes aren't),

c. Were produced in mass numbers but were all lost or destroyed in past wars or conflicts,

d. Were either produced in mass numbers or weren't, and were just fine but off screen on other missions and we just didn't see them.

If we're going with the idea that "a new ship has to replace an old ship", I would veer more into the failure category, just due to the Galaxy coming around so relatively quickly after the Ambassador, with those two ships clearly being in a similar lineage just through straight visuals. You could say the same of the Galaxy, although i'm not sure the Sovereign was ever a "replacement" for the Galaxy, rather it's a completely different design lineage. If anything, I could see the Sovereign being more in the lineage of the Excelsior.

I always linked the Sovereign to Excelsior over the Galaxy, and it's led me to think there was an unseen on screen "missing link" of an early/mid-2300's style step between.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with a ship not being produced in mass numbers and to be completely honest, it's probably that reason why we see so many Excelsiors, Mirandas, etc. I think you're entirely right that Starfleet tends NOT to mass produce any particular class of vessel. The exception to this was the late-2200's... they were apparently just churning out those ships.

It does make sense. It's clearly a fairly massive undertaking to completely overhaul/refit a ship, to the point that it might be more efficient to just build a new ship. Given how rapidly technology tends to advance in Star Trek, producing more limited runs of ships probably makes sense... design HighTechShip, build like 20 of them... and then in 5 years, they're old news and already behind the curve on technology, so design HighTechShipII, build like 20 of then, rinse and repeat.

 

[Tuskin38]

From an engineering standpoint, the larger a structure, the easier it is to come down.
Same logic would apply to a space station that's not designed for warp and has no nacelles.
As for Atlantis... it's literally explained in the TV show.

That's why they'd disassemble it, warp those pieces out via a warp tug. Nothing in any of the movies or series says they couldn't do that. Nothing in canon has described how the station was built.

London Bridge was taken apart and shipped across the world to Arizona (New Mexico?).

Same thing.

Category:Relocated buildings and structures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fireproof78]

That's why they'd disassemble it, warp those pieces out via a warp tug. Nothing in any of the movies or series says they couldn't do that. Nothing in canon has described how the station was built.

London Bridge was taken apart and shipped across the world to Arizona (New Mexico?).

Same thing.

Category:Relocated buildings and structures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's very possible.

The Building That Moved: How Did They Move an 11,000-Ton Telephone Exchange Without Suspending Its Operations?

In November 1930, in Indiana, United States, one of the great feats of modern engineering was executed: a team of architects and engineers moved an...

www.archdaily.com

The 10 Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved

Hefting a sofa up a flight of stairs can take a lot of logistics. So what does moving thousand-ton buildings across cities -- or even oceans -- entail?

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

That's why they'd disassemble it, warp those pieces out via a warp tug. Nothing in any of the movies or series says they couldn't do that. Nothing in canon has described how the station was built.

London Bridge was taken apart and shipped across the world to Arizona (New Mexico?).

Same thing.

Category:Relocated buildings and structures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's reasons to move a man-made structure such as a building or bridge. Space is open and fast. Why move a Spacedock out of Earth orbit when you can just upgrade and add onto it? It's like moving an entire city.

 

[fireproof78]

There's reasons to move a man-made structure such as a building or bridge. Space is open and fast. Why move a Spacedock out of Earth orbit when you can just upgrade and add onto it? It's like moving an entire city.

Because they can.

They don't view resources the same way as we do. So, if they can move it, and they like it, they'll do it.

 

[HotRod]

Nothing in canon has described how the station was built.

Tho we have actually seen it being built.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Because they can.

They don't view resources the same way as we do. So, if they can move it, and they like it, they'll do it.

"Because they can" isn't really a reason to do something like risk destroying an entire city-size space station (Spacedock).