Constitution Class, why replace her with the Excelsior Class?

[Hartzilla2007]

Well in ST4 we are introduced to the Enterprise A.
I was a little surprised that the new Enterprise was basically the same as the last one.
The one with 20 year old technology.

Didn't notice the some what updated bridge which implies fancy new toys?

My feeling from watching ST2 was that the Enterprise was being retired not only because it was 20 years old, but that it was out of date technologically speaking as well.

Except if it was 20 years out of date tech wise it wouldn't be using the same tech as pretty much every other ship in the fleet judging by every bridge save Excelsior's being an Enterprise redress.

Besides Morrow was talking about the age of the ship not the age of the tech.

Why the heck would they be training cadets on 20 year outdated tech anyway?

 

[USS Triumphant]

I wonder how the viewers of TNG would have been liked it if Picard's 1701-D had been a newly built updated interior technology Constitution Class-refit?

Let's make it more interesting - leave the D alone, but make the E a Connie-refit. I'd have LOVED to see the looks on my friends' faces in that theater.

 

[Brainsucker]

Though, a style of ship doesn't necessarily designate it's use (within a size class). A Constitution could be a heavy cruiser, bristling with weapons, it could be an exploration cruiser, it could be a hospital ship.

If you built a brand new Connie from the "ground" up with whatever tech was new at the time, wouldn't it be as good as an Excelsior?

Maybe the long (and ample) nacelles were more prone to stress? Maybe some other basic design flaw?

This is exactly what I mean.
The constitution use modules. They can become anything. From a heavy cruiser, hospital, space laboratory, exploration, etc. If they build a new Constitution with new technology, it will has the same capability as the excelsior.

But someone has a good argument too. Like the material, the shape design, etc would raise her stealth capability (not cloak).

And maybe it is about the size.

 

[Deks]

Perhaps Type 8 is bigger?

(Although actually it isn't - in "Preemptive Strike", Gul Evek grumbles that the Maquis small craft are packing Type 8 phasers.)

Timo Saloniemi

In the case of 'Preemptive Strike', it could be simply that via a process of technical efficiency, scientists found ways to reduce the size of the hardware (in this case, a Type 8 phaser) while retaining and even increasing its power output, and simultaneously decrease the size of power cores while increasing their overall power output.

Granted, since phasers transitioned from a ball-turret style to strips filled with emitters roughly 30 years (or more, since they were seen on Enterprise-C) prior to TNG, it is possible that strips are more versatile and scalable, and the only limiting thing on Maqui (or any other) smaller crafts (such as shuttles, runabouts and fighters) would be the amount of emitters they can place (reducing the overall coverage, but not power output - since power output was never correlated with amount of emitters in a phaser strip).

You would need to balance how and where to place phaser strips, and in what amount, since hull geometry and internal hardware need to be taken into account (though this might be of less importance if they are also using wireless means of transporting energy to certain systems - and in the case of Maqui crafts, this wouldn't surprise me).

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Though, a style of ship doesn't necessarily designate it's use (within a size class). A Constitution could be a heavy cruiser, bristling with weapons, it could be an exploration cruiser, it could be a hospital ship.

If you built a brand new Connie from the "ground" up with whatever tech was new at the time, wouldn't it be as good as an Excelsior?

Maybe the long (and ample) nacelles were more prone to stress? Maybe some other basic design flaw?

This is exactly what I mean.
The constitution use modules. They can become anything. From a heavy cruiser, hospital, space laboratory, exploration, etc. If they build a new Constitution with new technology, it will has the same capability as the excelsior.

But someone has a good argument too. Like the material, the shape design, etc would raise her stealth capability (not cloak).

And maybe it is about the size.

I suppose any ship could be modular to a point, but the only ones we hear about (mostly in the novels) are bridge modules, primary hulls (Rogue Saucer) and the obvious Nebula class pod.

 

[Timo]

And even the concept of a "bridge module" is really iffy. Why would interior redecoration (new consoles, new ordering of console wedges) be more practicably done by swapping the exterior? These guys have transporters available, so they could plug-and-play any particular interior item without needing to change their surroundings. And I'm not sure the issue of "wiring" would still exist in the future...

But if there really are bridge modules, then there probably are crew quarters modules, laboratory modules, phaser modules, shield generator modules and the like. And ships could be upgradeable to a certain degree.

Yet today's navies already have modularity of this sort: the German MEKO ships are built in a modular fashion (although nothing gets swapped afterwards in practice), and the Danish for one are very keen on truly modular weapons (the StanFlex system). This doesn't mean the ships would enjoy great longevity, as new weapon types (say, railguns or anti-UAV microwave blasters) create all-new requirements going beyond mere module dimensions or plug placements.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And even the concept of a "bridge module" is really iffy. Why would interior redecoration (new consoles, new ordering of console wedges) be more practicably done by swapping the exterior?

Actually the whole thing with "bridge modules" only makes sense if one considers the different locations of turbolifts between TSFS and TUC; the latter ship has them much farther apart than the former.

OTOH, real spacecraft like the ISS have this same kind of modularity: you can remove an entire rack of equipment like a giant appliance and replace it, filling up an entire wall. I'm of the impression that the "bridge module" of most starships is actually modular in exactly this same way, that prior to fitting out the bridge is actually just a giant hollow dome with empty slots along the wall where consoles, computers, hardware and furniture can eventually be installed. Even the "ceiling" panels are probably modular in the same way in that there's a lot of equipment BEHIND them that gets swapped and replaced but doesn't need to be directly interacted with.

Yet today's navies already have modularity of this sort

Space craft have ALWAYS had this kind of modularity. Consider that the Apollo stack with its command module and lunar modules is pretty much a smaller analog of the Enterprise anyway; projecting from the 21st century, the engineering section could actually be the "service module" of a starship. It's not that much of a stretch to think of the bridge as being a separate module that can be replaced or swapped between starships; it would make a certain amount of sense if, in the event of the ship's total destruction, the entire bridge compartment is ejected via explosive bolts and tumbles away like a giant lifepod (that would explain its awkward placement on top of the saucer).

 

[Timo]

Actually the whole thing with "bridge modules" only makes sense if one considers the different locations of turbolifts between TSFS and TUC; the latter ship has them much farther apart than the former.

But even those are merely a matter of rearranging the interior wedges. Very literally so - that's what the set builders did.

Since the wedges are modular for real, the turbolift station changes are amply explained by that modularity; changing the whole bridge wouldn't explain anything extra, especially when we can clearly see the exterior doesn't really change one iota.

Incidentally, most of the interior layouts force us to assume that the bridge is actually rather deeply inset, with the visible dome just a thick structure that sits atop the entire structure, and not a thin ceiling above the interior. There's no reason why this should be a problem, though. The only "exterior" feature of the interior is the aft airlock, and that one is disconnected from the bridge set anyway.

And indeed, it's accessed via turbolift! This makes the most sense if the airlock is actually almost a full deck above the bridge level.

Oh, and agreed on all the other points above, BTW. Not that agreeing with truth would make much difference.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

In TNG and DS9, we saw many Excelsiors and even Mirandas/Soyuz's, but no Connies.

This may have been due to a "behind the scenes" reason like they didn't want to confuse the viewer (is this possible since we saw Galaxy's on DS9?), or dilute the grandeur that was the Enterprise or E-A.

Or, it makes it likely they did replace the Constitutions with Excelsiors as far as a populous class of ship in that size/configuration.

I still take the view that there simply weren't many Connies to begin with, or at least there weren't many refit to TMP standards. By the TNG era, there could have been a small handful left, as with the contemporary Constellation class. The wrecked hull seen in BoBW could have been the last one still flying.

I think the refit programme was a stop-gap as much as anything, to keep the ageing Connies going until the next generation replacement was ready - the Excelsior. Didn't the US Navy refit a few 1940s battleships in the eighties to plug a perceived gap in the fleet?

The alternative is that there is a "missing link" ship from the 2270s, between the refit Connies and the launch of the Excelsior, one we've never seen. Or perhaps that's where the Soyuz fits in? The Enterprise was relegated to training duties with the Excelsior still a few years away from completion.

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding the Connies, I recall Kirk saying that there were only a dozen in the fleet.

Yeah, so there weren't that many in the first place.

 

[Timo]

Where does Kirk draw the limit, though? Would the slightly different Constellation or Defiant be one of those dozen, or something else altogether? Each a member of another dozen, perhaps?

Kirk's words can support the idea that ships looking roughly like his own ride disappeared quickly because there were so few of them to being with. But they don't have to be taken that way if some other model is more to our liking.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BK613]

^^ Arguably, the most parsed line of dialog in Trek history.
Twelve or thirteen? What does "like it" mean? How big a "fleet" is he referring to?

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Or, the debate over whether it was "Notify the discovery over subspace radio", or "Notify the Discovery over subspace radio".

Anyway, I like to find parallels in the real world for these sorts of Trekkian tech problems.

Even if the Constitution class and her peers were modular and assembled from similar hulls, the shipyards and physical infrastructure to build them may have long since been moved on. They didn't build any more Connies because the stuff they used to MAKE them no longer exists; and it would make sense to simply move on to the next thing instead of rebuilding the old infrastructure to start the line up again.

Case in point: Boeing built over a thousand of its 757 airliners. The last one was delivered in 2004. Since then, the airline industry has identified a larger need for a plane that could carry 150-200 people at a time within a certain range envelope - a need that the 757 would be ideal to fill, and indeed one that the remaining 757s are highly sought after for by airlines serving certain routes, as they are phased out of service by their original owners. However, in the decade since they stopped making them, they've dismantled all the machines they used to build the 757, and repurposed the factory lines to build other types of planes. It would cost less for Boeing to design and build a new plane design (in this case using all the new technology they developed for the larger 787 Dreamliner) to do exactly what the old design did, than to try to build more 757s. And indeed, this is what they are expecting to do, before the competition can do it and scoop a larger share of what could be 2000+ needed planes to fly that many people at a time that far over the next thirty years.

There are similar examples of this in the US Navy (who could really use more aircarft carriers but aren't able to restart building older, smaller, or cheaper designs) or Air Force (they have 187 F-22s, but can't afford to restart those production lines to build more of them if they wanted to - while ironically the older F-15 and F-16 production lines are still going and even offering modernized versions to foreign customers, albeit at a much higher price tag). In the latter case, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are desperately looking to find new customers for its older designs, because when they run out of planes that need building, the production line is shuttered and would never be able to be started up again.

In Starfleet, it seems that for whatever reason they aren't able to push a button and replicate a starship in seconds. As such, I think they have similar logistical issues that keep them from continuing to build more of older ships, even if they're proven designs. I think that the Connies, as well as the Ambassador, Galaxy and Excelsior classes, represent a finite run of starships that would simply cost too much (in resources, since money doesn't really exist within the Federation) to start building again. No one simply builds things that big or complex with an eye on NEVER stopping production - you are contracted to build X of them, you do so, then you move on. If there is a need to build more later on, it would likely cost too much to build more, and it would be much easier to use modern technology to build something new.

Mark

 

[Timo]

With replicators, tooling can't be a problem, though. If the object is of a replicable size, there is no effort involved regardless of whether the original pattern dates from 2379 or 1379.

In such circumstances, one'd think the effort of designing something new would far outweigh any sort of compatibility problems with centuries-old tech. And "compatibility" doesn't sound like a problem Starfleet should have anyway, as our heroes are quite compatible with alien tech they have never encountered before, tech potentially coming from another time or universe altogether.

Indeed, with long traditions of compatibility running way back to the days Vulcans conquered worlds, I wouldn't wonder if Starfleet/UFP tech really consisted of layer over layer of pretty veneer, interfacing with deeper and darker layers all the way down to baby-fist-sized resistors and capacitors to be found inside the consoles of NCC-1701-nil...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

This then suggests that starship design is one enormous make-work project for the enlightened, worry-free population of the Federation paradise.

Mark

 

[arch101]

In universe, there always seemed to be a limited number of Constitution class capital ships during Kirk's time. Then, Starfleet seemed to "go big" with an Excelsior class building program, resulting in a fairly large number of ships that served for a long period. For all we know, there might have been a small number of Ambassador ships built, which is why we never saw many. Then, another "big" program with the Galaxy/Nebula class. (I feel these classes are linked as they share so many common design elements).
Real world? It's like the small number of Forrestal and Midway class ships replacing the substantial Essex class. Then replaced by a large fleet of Nimitz class ships. And all this happened over a period of only about 25 years. Then, we went over 40 years until the Ford class started construction. The Fords are looking more and more like they will be a small run (but WILL include a new Enterprise!) as there is a push for a larger fleet of smaller mission-specific carriers as opposed to the super carriers.

 

[Timo]

In universe, there always seemed to be a limited number of Constitution class capital ships during Kirk's time.

Or of any ships of any description, for that matter.

We still can't tell for certain whether Constitutions were "capital" at that time, or merely second-rate ships doing all the hard work while the actual capital battleships preserved their strength by resting at starbases. And we're left wondering whether the Excelsior was intended to replace the Constitution at the front lines - or to replace the unseen battlewagons at the starbase piers.

(Three quarters of a century later, it was doing the former work, but was that merely a demotion for an outdated design that had formerly enjoyed the exalted position of pierside rest?)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Praetor]

The B-52 analogy has always been perfect for me. To me, the Federation built the Excelsior class for a war that never happened, ended up with a crap-ton of them, realized it was a really great long-lived design that they could keep upgrading for quite some time, and then by the 24th century they were ubiquitous.

If we take Star Trek as a whole, I think the makeup of the Federation Starfleet has evolved over time. Much like our real-life navies and air forces, new technologies have given rise to new types of vessels and craft, along with new designations. I think the Constitution/Excelsior shift is an example of this.

When it comes to a Starfleet ship's role, I'm a subscriber to the dual-classification school of thought. You have your peacetime roles (explorers, surveyors, escorts etc.) and then likely there are also wartime definitions (battleships, dreadnoughts, cruisers, destroyers etc.) ... so in peacetime, you have battleships and cruisers doing the same thing, exploring, to the extent that their different capabilities will allow.

It's interesting to note that in an episode of TNG ("Tin Man," I believe) Captain Desoto notes that the Excelsior-class Hood spends its time schlepping back and forth between starbases, and claims envy of the Enterprise's exploration. While we may certainly take some of the good captain's remarks with a grain of salt it is interesting that a large ship like the Galaxy has relegated the Excelsior to this role. Did something similar happen with the Constitution class during the early days of the 24th century? Or was the Galaxy meant to be a more literal replacement for the Excelsior? Some fans classify both as battleships, but I think this is probably irrelevant. I think the situation with Constitution/Excelsior is still comparable to Excelsior/Galaxy because it seems likely they all shared the same peacetime roles as an explorer; indeed the Excelsior herself was cataloging gaseous anomalies of all things when she was almost brand new!

 

[Tomalak]

Hey Praetor! How's that Excelsior tech manual coming?

 

[Tomalak]

^^ Arguably, the most parsed line of dialog in Trek history.
Twelve or thirteen? What does "like it" mean? How big a "fleet" is he referring to?

Where does Kirk draw the limit, though? Would the slightly different Constellation or Defiant be one of those dozen, or something else altogether? Each a member of another dozen, perhaps?

Kirk's words can support the idea that ships looking roughly like his own ride disappeared quickly because there were so few of them to being with. But they don't have to be taken that way if some other model is more to our liking.

Timo Saloniemi

Or there are only twelve others left?

The Enterprise was an old ship by the time Kirk got her, it could be only a handful were kept in service by then.