Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Praetor, Mar 23, 2009.
Is that launch date correct for the Ambassador class? I have seen 2332 mentioned elsewhere.
Heh, leave the people wanting more? We're on the same page then.
My notion for thinking the Excelsior was affected by the introduction of the Galaxy was Captain DeSoto of the Hood's line in one episode (I'm not sure which one) in which he says something like 'you Galaxy class guys get to go out and explore while I'm stuck hauling between starbases.' So I inferred (partly also based on the TNG TM) that a lot of the exploratory duties got handed over to, among others, the Galaxy class.
I have to check my notes to see where I got it from. I think the TNG TM. I have seen 2332 listed for the launch of the Enterprise-C.
I'll give kitsune one last chance to interject any editorial comments before I post the next chapter.
Ah, that was it. my mistake.
Well, considering it's all semi-canon conjecture at best, I'd hardly call it a mistake.
Regarding Excelsiors being "bumped" from frontline duty, I would suggest using the fleet status graphic as evidence to the contrary:
At least two Excelsior-class starships are assigned to deep space exploration in 2367 (Berlin and Repulse), out of four ships so listed in that area of space. DeSoto's line of hauling his butt back and forthe between starbases was probably true, at least in that it's the Galaxy-class ships that get all the press. The Excelsior class was arguably a backbone of geenral exploration in the earlier decades, but even if other classes of ship have taken over the big missions, there's still plenty of space out there for many starships to explore.
Well, I'm not really debating that the Excelsior is still out there doing its thing (and thanks for that list, btw, I'd forgotten it.) I just think that the bigger boys get the more fun missions, and probably like you say, the better press. And like you say, space is big.
Anywho, next chapter. Some of your concerns may be eased.
Chief O'Brien called them the Border Wars, did he not? It's not a huge point, but perhaps it sounds less grandiose than "Federation-Cardassian Wars", reflecting that it was a series of skirmishes rather than a full-blown total war.
Good way of explaining the higher numbered Excelsiors though, and a nice way to end on Sulu. But I've got to say, these TOS characters were practically indestructible! Spock, Bones and Scotty are known to be at large in the 24th century, and if you go by the "non-canon" materials, Uhura's the chief of Starfleet intelligence, and Jim Kirk himself is kicking ass like a 25 year old.
Hopefully Chekov died of a heart attack aged 59 to balance things out!
Indeed, perhaps I will make some refinements in my nomenclature to include 'Border Wars.'
Yeah, that always bothered me a bit. Spock being long-lived is a given. It always made sense that Bones lived so long, in an ironic way. Scotty was a fluke of the transporter. The rest I've always been somewhat 'meh' towards, which is why I've taken great pains not to mention anything that I feel 'meh' towards in one context or another, so those who like that idea can still have them, without it affecting my narrative.
I always imagined Chekov going down with his ship in his sixties or so, in a blaze of glory for a noble cause. It seemed right for him somehow. It would also explain the U.S.S. Chekov from 'Best of Both Worlds'...
I'd forgotten about that ship. Wasn't it supposed to be USS Chekhov, as in Anton, but whoever built the model left off the 'h'?
Yeah, he died in a blaze of glory on the USS Mother Russia, saving the New Moscow colony from a Romulan sneak attack.
Which of course outraged him, because everybody knows the sneak attack was a Russian invention .
Praetor, I just wanted to let you know that I sat down to read all of this the other day and I've enjoyed it immensely. You've done a very good job of portraying everything in a very believable manner and, at the same time, you've explained a lot of the quirks of Starfleet's development over the years. I look forward to more.
By the way, while I was reading through these I did find something that I questioned somewhat. In chapter six you describe the results of Excelsior's shakedown and list a number of problems, only to then say that Starfleet was extremely pleased with the results. I don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever with what you said about Excelsior, I just feel like perhaps a sentence or two could be spent on the positive aspects in order to downplay the negative. As of right now it seems a bit jarring. Here's the specific section:
Sorry to bring up something from a few chapters back, I certainly hope it doesn't conflict with the present development! I just felt like I should bring up my concern while I had the chance.
That's what I understand to be the case.
Something like that...
Many thanks! I'm achieving my double-sided goal then.
No, I do appreciate you bringing this up. When I read it by itself, it does sound rather negative.
A few minor changes which should downplay the quirks while hopefully affirming her good qualities.
I think the additions work well. There were a couple of editing issues, though:
"Impressived" should of course be "impressed". As for the second half and the instance with "remained", it looks like just an editing issue, I'm not quite sure what you wanted to do with it.
By the way, reading that segment again made me a bit curious as to whether or not there's ever a resolution to the ship's warp turbulence. I don't believe you explicitly mentioned a fix for that, it might be a nice touch to continue in the vein of the ships receiving upgrades to remain the backbone of the fleet. On the same topic, I looked back at the section about the Enterprise-B and it occurred to me that a mention of the extra impulse engines might be worthwhile, I noticed you had mentioned impulse performance issues earlier but only vaguely mentioned the Enterprise-B variant's upgrades, so it might help to flesh things out a bit.
By the by, any idea in your mind why the impulse upgrades wouldn't have become standard, if not the other attributes of the variant? I'm thinking something along the lines of either the added bulk throwing off the vessel's performance, the need to cut down on the space used by the engines, or maybe just an improvement in impulse technology that made them unnecessary.
Yeah... I was just typing too fast. Thanks.
No, I didn't. I had actually never decided whether it was something that should ever be resolved, but I might go back and add it into the section about the Melbourne upgrade.
Well, there are actually appendices in the technical section which we haven't got to yet that goes into all the various variants. The B's mods might bear a slight greater fleshing out than they did in the text.
To satisfy your curiosity, here's that Appendix now:
Interestingly enough, FASA made reference to an Enterprise-C being an Alaska class battleship which disappeared with no trace. I kind of liked the idea that perhaps the name was hastily transferred to the Ambassador class instead (the USS Alaska would fit in with this) since they didn't know what had happened to the ship, and believed it would reflect badly for the new Enterprise to be lost so soon after commissioning.
I believe my original source for mentioning the Alaska was reading that the Probert version of the Enterprise-C (from the sculpture and the concept paintings) was originally speculated to be that class. That does tie in nicely with that.
That could be. I'm not sure if FASA drew the name from that idea, as they did include an entirely different Ambassador class based on the dialogue from "Conspiracy." For the RPG's faults, I have to give them credit for at least trying to make some things consistent with early TNG.
Praetor, why don't you tie the Ent-B variant and the warp turbulence issue together? maybe the design changes on the B were an attempt to resolve the issue that ultimately either did not work or only partially worked making it not cost effective.
Chapter 9, paragraph 5,
"for a threat that, before that encounter"
Would read better if the second "that" was replaced with "this"
Chapter 9, paragraph 2,
"sufficient parts spares"
"sufficient spare parts"
Never heard that version...
Anyway, Pavel Chekov was obviously supposed to have the same surname as the famous author. The funny American spelling and pronunciation were just the best these 1960s writers could do. Perhaps "Chekov" is the correct 23rd and 24th century translitteration? Today, "Chekhov" is favored in some circles, but for example "Tsehoff" and "Tjejov" are equally valid - it depends on the linguistic context.
If one doesn't count this unseen Springfield class vessel, we've never seen a starship that was identifiably named after a Starfleet hero. Many have been named after military heroes of the distant past, but for some reason Starfleet personnel don't cut it. That is, unless there was a Starfleet Admiral Malinche, a Starfleet Dilithium Cross recipient named Vico, a famous starship commander named Agamemnon, and so forth.
For parallel construction, and to sound more formal, use Klingon Empire here (for the first mention of Klingons).
universe → galaxy. For all we know, the other 100 billion galaxies could be in depressions...
Class is singular, them is plural.
The Admiralty finally agreed to decommission the remaining Constitution class ships and replace them with Excelsior class ships.
Pursuant to the Klingons' stipulations,
Generally speaking, don't spell numbers greater than ten except to maintain parallel construction, or for legal clarification. Use 70% instead.
Medusa-class sounds appropriate for some members of the DS9 Frankenfleet...
massive concept → broad scope
run-on alert! Lots of commas there.
Starfleet's → the fleet's (to avoid using Starfleet twice in the same sentence)
Incorrect use of the term staple. Staple refers to essential commodities.
How about, ship of distinction? Source of pride? De facto flagship?
commander → captain or commanding officer
class is singular, their is plural
Insert a comma after them
For parallel construction, use Romulan Empire here
The class doesn't allow families, that's a policy thing.
Suggest: and was among the first Starfleet ship classes designed to accommodate families
Sulu → He (to avoid repetition)
would retire → retired
run → ran or campaigned to become
was present → developed
paced up → ramped up
or recommissioned as
of → on
Klingon Empire for parallel construction
previously-established, uneasy peace
real → genuine
and could → and this could
signifcane → significance
I prefer to avoid using the word bigger in formal writing. I suggest larger instead. But if you decide to keep bigger, please add hyphens: bigger-and-better.
Starfleet is singular, they is plural.
battleships, a multi-role
There was USS Archer, which is unlikely to refer to Jeffrey.
Separate names with a comma.