Heavy Cruiser Evolution: A Sketch

[Capt_Jason]

Essentially I will let this sketch speak for its itself. However, it is my attempt to reconcile a few conflicting dates presented in canon as well as fanon works.

The Okudachron tells us that Enterprise was commissioned in 2245. We can be reasonably sure that her configuration was much like what we saw between the Cage and the first year of TOS.

Fandom Treknical works (Notably, the Graham/Mandel Timeline) tells us that the Constitution class was first commissioned beginning in 2218 with the class vessel followed by Enterprise in 2221 (per Ships of the Star Fleet Volume One).

So far so good, but how do we explain the oddball NCC registry for Constellation NCC-1017 and Republic NCC-1371? The chart above attempts to graphically illustrate just where those two vessels came from via preceeding classes refitted to Constitution Class specifications.

The chart is very much a WIP. Comments and critiques welcome.

The sketches are ofcourse based on the toolkit graphics compiled by Vance.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's fine to posit a new explanation, but I'm much more in favor of just sticking with the currently-accepted explanation (albeit still "non-canonical").

The Republic and the Constellation were testbed vessels... each was refurbished to include some portion of the upcoming Constitution-type construction (presumably, one took the saucer, one the secondary-hull). Eventually, both were fully upgraded... ie, the other components were swapped out as well. Essentially, a whole new ship but transformed a chunk at a time and never actually decommissioned and recommissioned (which would have resulted in a new registry number).

That explanation has appeared in multiple places, and is my PERSONALLY preferred explanation. Feel free to come up with your own, of course... but just be aware that there is another, widely accepted, one out there already.

 

[Wingsley]

Capt Jason,

Does your evolution acknowledge or ignore the legacy of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE? The reason I ask is "These Are the Voyages..." seemed to suggest that NX-01 "Akiraprise" and possibly her fellow NX-class vessels were about to be decommissioned with the foundation of the Federation in 2161 and the advent of the much-vaunted (but never canonically confirmed) "Warp 7 engine". It could be that the Starship Bonaventure was supposedly "the first starship with warp drive" because true "warp drive" was built on "Warp 7 engine" technology.

It was never made clear when the first Federation starship class came into being that could sustain Warp 7. Maybe early starship classes could only achieve Warp 6-6.5. (In "First Flight", Archer grumbled about how it took the Vulcans 200 years to break the Warp 2 barrier.) So the Bonnie could've been the first of the last, or the last of the first, depending on how you play it.

I think it's very interesting how your evolution chart shows the various sections of the starship configuration slowly taking shape. I like this "proof-of-concept" approach to starship construction. It makes sense. Too bad ENT wasn't as logical.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Does your evolution acknowledge or ignore the legacy of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE? The reason I ask is "These Are the Voyages..." seemed to suggest that NX-01 "Akiraprise" and possibly her fellow NX-class vessels were about to be decommissioned with the foundation of the Federation in 2161 and the advent of the much-vaunted (but never canonically confirmed) "Warp 7 engine". It could be that the Starship Bonaventure was supposedly "the first starship with warp drive" because true "warp drive" was built on "Warp 7 engine" technology.

For fear of my life, dare I utter my reply to the question of ENT? What the heck. The answer is No, though if I were to be inclusive of ENT in my line of thinking, I would say that having Bonaventure as a follow-on to the NX program would make sense, perhaps it was that Warp 7 bvessel they mentioned in the very same episode..

I rather like having a clear line of tech progression myself. I do not care much for the staunch canon approach. Between 1975 and 1986 there were heaps of interesting pieces of tech fiction which all nicely fit together. I realize that my choices are not in the majority, but I figure someone has to try and work with the material AS-IS. At the very least, if you side with either camp, this sketch sort of encapsulates each opposing viewpoint and attempts to make them live together.

That being said, I HAVE to accept that the Constitution Class was literally 40 years old by the time of the FYM (per The Making of Star Trek) and that there were 14 ships in the class originally 9with two being refits of older vessels i.e. Republic and Constellation).

To acknowledge what Cary said above, I cannot say that I agree with the test-bed theory as-is. According to classic tech fiction, Republic served as a test bed for the components which led to the Constitution Class. The lower registry numbers seem to support that end. At one time, I was of the opinion that republic was the first ship to be equipped with a saucer primary hull. The development of the saucer seemed to coincide with the discovery and development of tritanium and their use in the construction of starship hulls. Lately however Im not so sure such an alloy would be a direct requirement per se. HOwever, I kept the tech fiction date of 2208 nonetheless. It seems to fit the overall tech progression nicely.

Im not entirely sure at this point what I would do with the Baton Rouge and the refit bellow it just yet. I will continue sketching...

 

[Vance]

I prefer to think that the Republic just simply was not a Constitution-class vessels. There's really no evidence for it, it makes more sense to be a latter Baton Rogue era vessel, and it eliminates HALF the 'canon' problem. In short, 'fanon' is in error here, but so is the official listing.

AS for the Constellation, I prefer to think that there was a few 'commissioned but not yet builds' of an earlier class of vessel. When the constitution proved herself, a handful of earlier appropriations were changed over to the new classes. The Constellation was a new build Connie, as we saw her, but her REGISTRY was originally intended for another class.

 

[Rattrap]

In the real world, a new ship is often built as the flimsiest-disguised "upgrade" of an existing vessel, when there are appropriations for "upkeep and modernization", but not new construction. Since, as Dr. McCoy said, "The bureaucratic mind is the only universal constant", I can see Starfleet convincing the Federation that, "We can afford that 12th Constitution if we upgrade this spaceframe", even if the upgrade includes everything but the running lights.

 

[Gagarin]

I do like some of Vance's suggestion.

Suppose a hull number of 1017 was authorized but never built, the last of the 10XX series. So the order was changed over to Constitution Class... maybe during early stages of construction (the keel).

The USN has skipped TONS of hull numbering through the years and reassigned hull numbers, and gone out of sequence.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think the simpler solution has some elements of the above idea, reassigning hull numbers from the previous class to the newest one, as well as just figuring that the previous ship class wasn't all that different from the new one.

Case in point, the Enterprise and the Constellation...

 

[Vance]

Well, officially, the Constellation IS a Constitution class ship. To qualify, she only has to be of the same design and built AFTER the Constitution herself was. Re-appropriation of a registry, or redoing a ship's design in the early stages of a build, makes the most sense.

But the main 'canon' reason for not wanting to completely and radically do is The Motion Picture, which states pretty explicitly what they're doing to the Enterprise (and, in early drafts, other ships) was almost unheard of. The reactions wouldn't make a lot of sense if the entire front-line fleet had done it already (and even slightly more radically) just a generation before.

 

[Capt_Jason]

The fanon is wrong... Lets bare in mind here that this body of work sometimes vilified as 'fanon' was trying to work from a product of mass media which really could NOT determine what time period it "officially" wanted to set itself in. Thus from "The Squire of Gothos", 900 (or was it 700?) years in the future, "Miri" 300 years in the future based on a relative dating of a piano they encounter (circa 2260 which the particular body of "fanon" that I am interested in uses as its temporal baseline), and lastly from "Space Seed" where we learn that Botany Bay has been adrift in space for 200 years (circa 2196). The official TOS "canon" is all over the temporal map in this case.

"Fanon" took the general assumption that our story was set in the 23rd century and so they elected to go with the "Miri" relative date. From that point on, between 1975 and 1986, technical fiction (the SFC/FASA dating system excluded) worked from that baseline of 2260 and created a heap of fun and interesting materials which produced at a time when there was no "official" Star Trek forthcoming. When the official materials came along in 1980, the movies only seemed to reinforce that "fanon" baseline.

Zoom ahead to the present day. After suffering through the TNG+ years, drunken Zefram Cochranes, akiraprises, and beagles in space, I have CHOSEN to work with a set of parameters which worked for technical fiction between 1975 and 1986. I make no attempt to bend and shape those materials to conform to my own thoughts on how this stuff should have progressed, but choose to work with them AS IS. Thus, the sketch above. The only thing I am reall guilty of here is bothering to make a compromise between the 2218 and 2245 launch dates for the Constitution Class.

As a couple of readers have pointed out, it is not without modern-day precedence to start with an existing hull, tear her down to frames and take a fresh look at how to make her a bigger, meaner, and faster ship. I have SOME right to suggest this as I work with in-land and coastal marine operations and am licensed to operate vessels 100-200 tons. I do understand a thing or two about the refit process.

I am opposed to "re-appropriating" existing hull numbers for any reason. The damned NCC system is bollocked up enough as it is then going back and re-assigning previous contract numbers.

On the subject of the redesign and refit of Enterprise in TMP, the only thing we know for certain is that the process took 18 months. No one made any claims to the process being unique or special only that it was a refit process which led to the installation of the linear intermix system and said systems experienced a few "hiccups" in operation due to the hasty launch. Thats it. Thats all we can say for certain, and its not enough to suggest that I abandon my cause here.

At this point, Im not interested in abandoning the progression line I have here. I AM interested in how we might take the ship designs and tweak them to make them more interesting and plausible. You have my reasons for WHY I am doing this, people. Now I would like to find out HOW it could be done better or in ways to make this more interesting.

 

[Kaiser]

cool idea here

It makes for a great use of Vances Tool-kit parts

 

[Capt_Jason]

kaisernathan1701 said:
cool idea here

It makes for a great use of Vances Tool-kit parts

Thank you, Kaiser. I appreciate it as I appreciate my colleague's efforts to make those pieces available to us who are artistically-challenged.

 

[Michael_One]

Interesting progression, Capt, Jason.

You have created a great implication, that Starfleet has been looking for the optimum warp propulsion system through the late 22nd century and well into the 23rd. Thus, the Constitution class nacelles were in use for a long time as they were the culmination af a mature technology.

This goes beyond your chart, but the late 23rd century desings make sense from this starting point...

The 1701 refit was an incremental improvement in speed, but I'm thinking the Federation was growing to the point where much faster starships were needed, hence the high hopes for the "Great Experiment".


Neat chart!

 

[Capt_Jason]

Michael_One said:
Interesting progression, Capt, Jason.

You have created a great implication, that Starfleet has been looking for the optimum warp propulsion system through the late 22nd century and well into the 23rd. Thus, the Constitution class nacelles were in use for a long time as they were the culmination af a mature technology.

Thanks for the nod, Michael!. It seems to me that it is entirely possible when looking at the overall tech progression. certainly, my favored sources go out of their own way to suggest the very same underlying principle. That being said, I believe the succes or failure of any new warp drive system would have a great deal to do with field geometrics and stresses imposed upon vessel hulls during and after transition into subspace.

This goes beyond your chart, but the late 23rd century desings make sense from this starting point...

The 1701 refit was an incremental improvement in speed, but I'm thinking the Federation was growing to the point where much faster starships were needed, hence the high hopes for the "Great Experiment".


Neat chart!

Not to mention the obvious need to stay ahead of opposing space fleets literally.

You know..looking over this chart again, I can see a possible situation where the Kresta and Republic Classes were in direct competition with each other to determine which could field the optimal warp field geometrics. Notice the two classes are essentially the same along 'er lines, however their propulsion packages are different (Notice the intentional use of the warp nacelles from S.S. Bonaventure (TAS)). Perhaps, in this scenario, the Kresta Class and propulsion package was surpassed by the Republic Class and it was this tech progression process which led to rapid advances which led to the Constitution (I) Class in 2218. Constellation would then be refitted to Connie specs from her Kresta lines. Perhaps Kresta and sisters became a tech progression dead end?

 

[Dayton3]

They all look very good.

 

[Vance]

By 're-appropriation' I'm not meaning that they took a registry for one ship and slapped it on another. I mean that they had - in appropriations committee, planed on the NCC-1017 be a Baton Rogue class ship (for example) and, due to the advent of the Constitution class, ordered that the planned but not yet constructed NCC-1017 be built to the far superior specs instead.

The timeline would like this.

2242 - A block of four Baton Rogue cruisers is approved by UESPA appropriations and are assigned in the registrar as NCC-1016 through NCC-1019

2244 - Construction of Class I starships briefly placed on hold pending results of the USS Constitution trial. Existing ships are rescheduled for regrading.

2245 - Constitution class trial complete as a stellar success. USS Enterprise completed. UESPA agency orders that ALL ships approved but not yet constructed be built to the new specifications.

2247 - USS Constellation constructed using registry of NCC-1017.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I really like this--it doesn't fit in with the Trek franchise and so much the better.

I particularly like the Constitution Block I design.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Going softly on...

 

[Gagarin]

Hah, going 'softly' on =).

I suppose to make the transition smoother, perhaps make the upper structure of the primary hull closer to the final shape, but not quite that there yet. It seems like a quick sudden jump to the Block II after many gradual steps.

 

[Wingsley]

I woud say that the secondary hull change is more abrupt.

There was an old thread on the now-defunct "Federation Reference Series" forum where someone conjured up the beginnings of a 3D "early Constitution" model. The secondary hull liked more like this sketch from Jefferies:

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Jefferies_Enterprise_sketch.jpg

The secondary hull and the nacelles on the 3D model were tapered, being narrower at the aft tips. The tapering was stronger than on your evolution drawing. To me, the shape lent itself to an evolutionary chain; the secondary hull looks like it could've been refit/reshaped to the "block 2" configuration, whereas your "block 1" looks like a different hull altogether.