Is the Luna-class an improvement?

[admiral horton]

If i remeber right the story behind the Luna is that it was spefically design to explorer the gamma quadrant and the USS Luna was launchered right before the out break of the Dominion War and did not go into full production until after the war as an explorer
not exclusvie to the gamma quadrant to make up for starfleet loses, but the Luna was to be the most sofisacated explorer built at that time.

 

[Timo]

How do you come to that conclusion? The Valiant was full of cadets when war broke out, so evidently it had been built. Presumably having seen the success of the Defiant against the Jem'Hadar, where the Odyssey and a fleet of Romulan and Cardassian warships had failed, Starfleet decided to reactivate the programme.

Yet the registry of the Valiant is mere five "points" higher than that of the prototype vessel, either speaking against the idea of 1000 NCC/yr or then suggesting that these two 74000-range ships date back to the same year the Voyager does. What this "dating back" really means is unclear: perhaps all three ships were to be completed in the same year, but the Voyager was delayed by three years over the Defiant. Or perhaps all the three were ordered in the same year, and it was expectedly quicker to build Defiants than Intrepids.

In either case, the Sao Paulo is only a bit over 1000 "points" higher than the prototype Defiant, even though apparently built almost a decade later. Perhaps a case for Defiants actually being extremely difficult and slow to build, so that several keels were laid for the original anti-Borg mission in the late 2360s and given registries, but completing them to operational starships after "The Search" took several years?

Sometimes it's argued that the Defiant would be mass-built for the war. But she's not that small, and there's no indication she'd be any easier or faster to produce than an Excelsior or an Akira. She might require fewer resources in terms of sheer mass or volume, but those might be more exotic and expensive. Quite possibly she could be a silver bullet type, only built if the need were pressing and an obvious tactical use existed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

Well yes, but that's my point, other Defiant Class ships were evidently built before the war. It could be they laid down another batch of ships to complete this "Federation battle fleet" Sisko mentioned, but the Defiant was the only one completed, and subsequently shelved.

Evidently the decision to halt the Defiant programme was political rather than due to engineering difficulties, because O'Brien didn't have too much difficulty getting her up to scratch. I don't really have a problem with the idea that the emergence of the Dominion as a threat, plus the evident success of the Defiant, led Starfleet to reactivate the programme in the same year.

Regarding NCC numbers, there's enough inconsistencies along to way that I don't spend much time worrying about them. In a broad sense they increase with time, and there's enough leeway to explain discrepancies away by arguing they are allocated to various ships before construction, not upon commission, that different shipyards are given certain numbers, cancelled ships' numbers are reused, older ships may be refitted and recommissioned, etc.

 

[Saquist]

Yet the registry of the Valiant is mere five "points" higher than that of the prototype vessel, either speaking against the idea of 1000 NCC/yr or then suggesting that these two 74000-range ships date back to the same year the Voyager does. What this "dating back" really means is unclear: perhaps all three ships were to be completed in the same year, but the Voyager was delayed by three years over the Defiant. Or perhaps all the three were ordered in the same year, and it was expectedly quicker to build Defiants than Intrepids.

Borg Invasion 2366 the Defiant Development project in the works at the same time

NCC -74205 (Defiant Launched 2371)
NCC-74210 (Valiant Launched 2372)

Intrepid NCC-74600
Sao Paulo NCC-74633 (launched 2375)
Voyager NCC-74656 (Launched 2371)
Bollerophon NCC-74705 (Launched 2371)

From what I can tell launched date means nothing about the Registry. The Registry seems to be a better indicator of the ships construction time. In this case Sau Paulo was planned around the same time as Intrepid and Voyager. Obviously all they had to do with the Borg Threat was either bring the ships on line or just...finish them.

How does 5 units make the case against 1000 NCC's a year?

In either case, the Sao Paulo is only a bit over 1000 "points" higher than the prototype Defiant, even though apparently built almost a decade later. Perhaps a case for Defiants actually being extremely difficult and slow to build, so that several keels were laid for the original anti-Borg mission in the late 2360s and given registries, but completing them to operational starships after "The Search" took several years?

But we're not told Sao Paulo was built a decade later. That's the launch date. The only reason why Defiant was launched in 2371 was because Sisko pulled it out of storage.

Sometimes it's argued that the Defiant would be mass-built for the war. But she's not that small, and there's no indication she'd be any easier or faster to produce than an Excelsior or an Akira. She might require fewer resources in terms of sheer mass or volume, but those might be more exotic and expensive. Quite possibly she could be a silver bullet type, only built if the need were pressing and an obvious tactical use existed.

Timo Saloniemi

As we've seen there is no consensus for how big Defiant is.
Isn't it logical to presume that the actual construction of a ship 120 to 200 meters long is not going to take as long for the 24th century Federation with dozen's of ship yards that can construct Galaxy and Sovereign class ships?

 

[Tomalak]

Besides, they are rough and ready warships. They only have basic amenities anyway, they aren't like the Galaxy class ship with hundreds of sophisticated labs, equipment and all the social infrastructure.

On the other hand, they probably could have built a Galaxy hull and launched with just the necessities needed to get it flying and fighting. There wouldn't be much point making sure Ms Krabappel's classroom was fully kitted-out. There's no real reason to assume every Galaxy takes ten years to build (as per the TNG TM), given the Enterprise was one of the very first of this new, untested revelation of starship design.

 

[Timo]

The Defiant may only have "basic amenities", but she's supposed to have state-of-the-art armament and armouring. Possibly a much more difficult construction task than a generic Galaxy for which generic tooling exists.

How does 5 units make the case against 1000 NCC's a year?

Only if we assume the NCCs are allocated to reflect the (planned) launch date of the ship, rather than some ill-defined construction date. Ill-defined in the sense that we virtually never have access to dates regarding construction, but the dedication plaques and the dialogue sometimes specify launch (or, rather, commissioning) date.

The problem with that isn't that some launches take place several "thousands" after the registry-suggested start of construction (although this is a problem with the runabouts, which are supposed to be new in "Emissary", as per "Paradise", but shouldn't take years to build). It's that some of them don't. How does something like the Bradbury, with NX-72307, already sail between stars in 2366, if that year is supposed to see the start of the project for 74000-range ships? We're seeing odd fluctuation between construction times: small craft only emerge after several years, seemingly large vessels take just two years.

That's not a crippling fault in the system, of course. Might be the runabouts got put in ice for a while, too. Irregularities happen...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

Timo, a registrar doesn't need to reflect the construction date at all. All a registrar does is assign a 'code' (NCC-90210) to a vessel so that orders, construction details, refit procedures, et al, are mapped to that registry. As far as the official duties and database-keeping of starfleet goes, a ship is NOT the "USS Enterprise", it's the "NCC-1701".

A ship's nomenclature is a sub-field UNDER its registry. As is its construction and appropriation date. (The latter is when a ship gets assigned its registry to begin with.) The registry number just has to be unique, but it can be anything.

So ships from TNG on have 'generally increasing numbers', based on however appropriations enters them in. It doesn't mean that even appropriation is sequential in the least. Also, even if two ships are appropriated at the same time, it may be years before the second ship is laid down after the first.

 

[Timo]

Quite so. I was just wondering if one or the other of the various theories on how the registries might reflect construction chronology fits the evidence better. It would be nice to be able to tell whether a 74000-range ship dates from before, during or after the Dominion War, or whether a 64000-range one indeed is roughly one decade older - or whether some years see 7,000 "NCC units" allocated, and others just 231, ruining all predictability.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

Quite so. I was just wondering if one or the other of the various theories on how the registries might reflect construction chronology fits the evidence better. It would be nice to be able to tell whether a 74000-range ship dates from before, during or after the Dominion War, or whether a 64000-range one indeed is roughly one decade older - or whether some years see 7,000 "NCC units" allocated, and others just 231, ruining all predictability.

Unfortunately no, as I explained earlier. The general trend is 'upping the numbers' as you go just based on earlier slots largely being filled, but it doesn't necessarily mean much.

Even if you go to TSFS you had brand new Oberth class ships with registries in the 600s (deliberately taking place after the Monoceros class, since the TM was canon at the time) and also at the 2000s (the Excelsior class). Meanwhile both the Enterprise (NCC-1701) and the Reliant (NCC-1864) were considered old ships.

In TNG we know that a lot of the registries are in-jokes, such as birthdays, zip-codes, etc. You also have a number of registries coming before the class ships (which shouldn't be possible for any sort of sequential numbering).

 

[Satyrquaze]

How do we know that the Oberth-class was brand new?

 

[Saquist]

We're not told Oberth or Reliant is old or new.
And Constellation suggest that that style of design began before we ever saw Excelsior, and it was an experimental ship so it was not a refit...likely it was the origin of the Enterprise refit. What we recognize as the Enterprise Constitution II refit style likely is actually the Constellation style starships that were later modified.

 

[Vance]

How do we know that the Oberth-class was brand new?

It's packed with late 2270s tech, and doesn't have TOS lines in the least. It was also deliberately given the registration it has to be the 'Scout class past the Technical Manual'. Canonically, it enters service in the early 2280s.

Reliant is called 'this old bucket' in the script and novel. We also know that the ship was originally designed as a Constitution class contemporary. The registry choice, again meant to be post-Technical Manual, was supposed to place the ship's construction in the 2260s.

I don't know where the Constellation details from. We know that she was made in a hurry for TNG and that she was originally going to be a Constitution class ship as well. A misdating for the Hathaway puts the ship in the TSFS timeframe, but the Constellation herself isn't launched until TUC. In either case, the Constellation doesn't come for 12 years after the Enterprise uprating program.

 

[Tomalak]

The Stargazer, as described by Picard, almost seemed like it was thrown together from spare parts, and sent out into deep space. I kind of like it, there's something about it that appeals to me.

 

[Saquist]

It's packed with late 2270s tech, and doesn't have TOS lines in the least. It was also deliberately given the registration it has to be the 'Scout class past the Technical Manual'. Canonically, it enters service in the early 2280s.

We can reason the design is modern but we can't reason the ship is new thus.
Canon says nothing about the origins of the Oberth Class itself.

Reliant is called 'this old bucket' in the script and novel. We also know that the ship was originally designed as a Constitution class contemporary. The registry choice, again meant to be post-Technical Manual, was supposed to place the ship's construction in the 2260s.

I did find a script that called Reliant an Old and somewhat battered ship of the Enterprise class but that doesn't really tell us anything. They didn't say older to what and even if they did it can imply when applied to canon that the Reliant got it's refit alot sooner than the 1701.

I don't know where the Constellation details from. We know that she was made in a hurry for TNG and that she was originally going to be a Constitution class ship as well. A misdating for the Hathaway puts the ship in the TSFS timeframe, but the Constellation herself isn't launched until TUC. In either case, the Constellation doesn't come for 12 years after the Enterprise uprating program.

Constellation merely appeared on a screen.
That doesn't tell us anything about time period other than it existed. Constellation and Hatheway could have been constructed and obviously were constructed long before TUC.

But the mistakes are there in the registry if we are to believe that.

 

[C.E. Evans]

How do we know that the Oberth-class was brand new?

It's packed with late 2270s tech, and doesn't have TOS lines in the least. It was also deliberately given the registration it has to be the 'Scout class past the Technical Manual'. Canonically, it enters service in the early 2280s.

Hmm...I always figured the Oberth-class we saw was a refit version and an unseen original version had slightly pre-TOS lines.

 

[Vance]

We can reason the design is modern but we can't reason the ship is new thus.
Canon says nothing about the origins of the Oberth Class itself.

Wrong. TNG places the inception of the class in the 2280s. (If you presume to lecture on 'canon', then Memory Alpha is your friend.)

I did find a script that called Reliant an Old and somewhat battered ship of the Enterprise class but that doesn't really tell us anything. They didn't say older to what and even if they did it can imply when applied to canon that the Reliant got it's refit alot sooner than the 1701.

The Enterprise was the first ship to be uprated to the new warp drive, shields, etc. This is explicitly stated in the movie.

The Reliant was intended to be very much like the Enterprise (hence Kahn's line) and also an older ship. How old is up to question, but she's clearly not new in 2285. Hell, the fact that she's on a 'out to pasture' mission is a good indicator she's past her prime, much like the Enterprise. That was the entire point of the ship as the adversary.

Constellation merely appeared on a screen.
That doesn't tell us anything about time period other than it existed. Constellation and Hatheway could have been constructed and obviously were constructed long before TUC.

If you mean the NCC-1017 and not the Constellation class (which is a different kettle of fish), then we already know why the registry is so odd. There are a myriad of ways to explain the low registry, however - the most plausible being that the Constellation was a ship that was re-appropriated from another class once the Constitution proved herself in trials. (2245). It should not be taken to imply that she was built 683 ships before her own class ship was built.

The Hathaway's date is mentioned in TNG, and the Constellation (NCC-1794) is explicitly mentioned in on-screen reports as undergoing trials in 2293.

Nor should we assume that the USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) was made exactly 1099 ships after her class ship. Or that the USS Victory (NCC-9754) was made 6861 ships later than that.

 

[Vance]

Hmm...I always figured the Oberth-class we saw was a refit version and an unseen original version had slightly pre-TOS lines.

Not really. The Grissom is a repurposed concept model for the [/i]Excelsior. Her lines are actually more consistant with the Excelsior age than with the so-called 'refit' age. Some people have made a TOS-era version of the ship, but it never quite looks right. The curves are definitely from the Excelsior.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Hmm...I always figured the Oberth-class we saw was a refit version and an unseen original version had slightly pre-TOS lines.

Not really. The Grissom is a repurposed concept model for the [/i]Excelsior. Her lines are actually more consistant with the Excelsior age than with the so-called 'refit' age.

Well, that's just your opinion, but it really doesn't change mine at all...

 

[Tomalak]

The Hathaway's date is mentioned in TNG, and the Constellation (NCC-1794) is explicitly mentioned in on-screen reports as undergoing trials in 2293.

It was NCC-1974 actually.

 

[Saquist]

Wrong. TNG places the inception of the class in the 2280s. (If you presume to lecture on 'canon', then Memory Alpha is your friend.)

MA says that the design was in use "AS" early as 2280's. That's an indefinite description of it's appearance not origins. That doesn't disqualify Oberth as being older than Enterprise as it's registry suggest.

The Enterprise was the first ship to be uprated to the new warp drive, shields, etc. This is explicitly stated in the movie.

I didn't see that anywhere in the script, only that the engines had yet to be tested at full power. I can only find that Sulu says the "new screens" held. Perhaps that can mean it was the first ship to give them but I haven't found that explicit statement so far. Am I missing something?

The Reliant was intended to be very much like the Enterprise (hence Kahn's line) and also an older ship. How old is up to question, but she's clearly not new in 2285. Hell, the fact that she's on a 'out to pasture' mission is a good indicator she's past her prime, much like the Enterprise. That was the entire point of the ship as the adversary.

Sure but nothing to say that the registry implication of after Enterprise is wrong. We try and rationalize the refit design on every ship in the 23rd century but the truth is the series was just (forgive me) out of date. So the looks aren't parallel.

If you mean the NCC-1017 and not the Constellation class (which is a different kettle of fish), then we already know why the registry is so odd. There are a myriad of ways to explain the low registry, however - the most plausible being that the Constellation was a ship that was re-appropriated from another class once the Constitution proved herself in trials. (2245). It should not be taken to imply that she was built 683 ships before her own class ship was built.

The Hathaway's date is mentioned in TNG, and the Constellation (NCC-1794) is explicitly mentioned in on-screen reports as undergoing trials in 2293.

Nor should we assume that the USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) was made exactly 1099 ships after her class ship. Or that the USS Victory (NCC-9754) was made 6861 ships later than that.

I have to say on Constellation Class..I haven't done enough research to speak with any certainty at all how it fits. I'm going to have to look into it further.