New Ambassador-Class

[Cary L. Brown]

Would it work to say that the original Ambassador was built to the specs of the Enterprise-C. The majority of production run Ambassadors, including the Ent-C, were built to these same specifications. The Ambassador herself was then seriously damaged in some-action-or-other while serving as the starfleet flagship causing her to be majorly refit to the Probert design. While her then prestigious role made her worthy of a refit the much-speculated problem with the original spec made it the remainder of the fleet unworth, unsuitable would perhaps be a better phrase, of the same: hence the later Ambassadors we've seen haviong Ent-C specifications.

But that's being needlessly convoluted. Why not just say that they're two different classes?

Well, there's how Star Trek has occasionally established "classes" and then there's how real navies establish "classes." The two aren't really the same thing, are they?

In real navies, the purpose for establishing a "class" is for planning purposes. Any two ships of the same class are, in every meaningful way, interchangeable. They have the same capabilities, and require the same servicing and support mechanisms.

This doesn't necessarily mean that two hulls from the same class are identical. If the same ship class is manufactured in two different dockyards, it's actually quite common for there to be differences... sometimes SIGNIFICANT ones... in the physical configuration.

In Trek, of course, the "classes" idea always worked very well... until ST-VI redefined the refit design as being "Constitution class." Prior to that point, it was defined... PROPERLY... as being a class named after the first ship in that configuration. That being, of course, the Enterprise. They even mention the "Enterprise Class" on the outside of the ST-II "Bridge simulator" module where the Kobayashi Maru is taken.

Personally, I treat the print in ST-VI which referred to the 1701-A as "Constitution-class" as being a production error, on the same level as the "78-deck primary hull" seen in ST-V.

The first ship of a given configuration is always the "class ship." Change the abilities or performance of a ship of that physical configuration in any signficant way, and the ship is no longer "interchangeable" with the earlier ships... hence it becomes a new class.

So... if we treat Probert's Ambassador and Sternbach-et-al's Ambassador as being able to be serviced by the same facilities, and having the same capabilities... ie, of being entirely interchangeable from a logistical and operational standard... I have no problem envisioning one as being built at Utopia Planitia and one being built at Starfleet Division, San Francisco. (Just for example)

 

[Maverisms]

^This.

To expand on my concept car example, the production VOlt and the concept Volt are probably very similar in terms of the parts. I don't doubt there are major differences, but I'm betting, without too much work, the systems in one can be retrofit to the other.

In the cae of the Ambassador, I'm suggesting what Cary said. The lead units were built out like USS Ambassador, but for reasons unknown (I just like "easier to fabricate" because that's the real reason E-C looks like she does), the external configuration was changed a bit while the internals remain largely the same.

While some parts won't swap, 9 out of ten can be taken from one ship and plugged into another, regardless of the external configuration. I was going to say "patched" instead of "plugged" but I think there's useful distinction. A lot of systems in Starships are interchangeable between classes (See NX-01 using a stolen "warp coil"). What I mean here, and what I believe Cary means is a part from USS Ambassador would fit in USS Enterprise C without modification. As plug and play as a bit of major equipment can get.

[Edit]: a bit more...

This is also what I meant by saying "A block modification" Take the AH-64. The current model is the Longbow, AH-64D. There are significant parts to the D that simply will not go on a AH-64A. That is one reason for the deliminators (A,C and D IIRC). They not only indicate the capabilities of the aircraft, the indicate the parts list, and--to a certain extent--which parts are interchangeable. But it can get more complex than that, with designations like AH-64D Block 2 wich specifies that the aircraft has modification not present on a Block 1 aircraft.

To expand on Cary's definition of class, one could say that the Constitution Class refit is actually a Connie if the modifications were intended to be retrofit into all service members of the Class. This is similar to the real life 688 Los Angeles class attack boats. Some do not have vertical launch tubes (and likely never will) but the space for them was built into each member of the class. Those without are designated Flight I, those With Flight II, and there is third variant, the 688i which has uprated systems. They are all Los Angeles Class because they share many common components, and the added designators help identify their differences.

 

[JES]

I agree with Maverism's idea, and was going to make a similar suggestion myself, but didn't have the time earlier this evening. It would also coincide nicely with the real world.

I personally champion the idea that the other vessels of the Ambassador class were built using simpler architecture in order to shorten construction time and complexity in case of war with the Cardassians or the Romulans.

 

[fleetcaptain]

I like this original idea better than the one that was used. Blends the elements of Excelsior and Galaxy so well. I know it was never seen on screen but still I have fallen in love with this design myself.

 

[Dukhat]

...or you could just simply say that they're two different classes, like I said before

In all honesty, ST has never really been consistent with class designations. For instance, on the one hand you have the Miranda class and the Soyuz class, and then you have the Excelsior class and the Excelsior sub-class (the Enterprise-B). What rule states that one ship is a completely different class, and yet the other ship is just a sub-class of another class?

I'm not pinging on your theories. All I'm saying is that whether or not the Ambassador class started out one way and changed later on, doesn't necessarily mean that it's still the same class of ship.

My theory? The Ambassador class always looked the way it did in "Yesterday's Enterprise." That other ship, while much more of an elegant and beautiful design, only existed as an unrealized design for the Ent-C (since that Enterprise "history" wall had very poorly defined models as it was, and both the Ent-B and Ent-C's designs were contradicted later anyway), or it was simply a different class altogether that we unfortunately never got a chance to see in the flesh.

 

[Birdog]

In real navies, the purpose for establishing a "class" is for planning purposes. Any two ships of the same class are, in every meaningful way, interchangeable. They have the same capabilities, and require the same servicing and support mechanisms.

That's not how it works IRL at times. The USS Los Angeles(688 class) is closer in capability to the USS Sturgeon(637 class) than she is to the USS Cheyenne which is also a 688 boat. The DDG 51s are the same way. The Nimitz carriers are not as extreme but the Bush is not the same ship that Nimitz is.

 

[Maverisms]

...or you could just simply say that they're two different classes, like I said before

You could. But....

It really wouldn't be simple. Now you have to explain this new Ambassador's NX-Registry, why it is so low and why we've never heard of this new Ambassador class ship.

More over you have to justify why this particular Ambassador has the exact same registry number as the Expanded Universe U.S.S. Ambassador.

It's six of one, or half a dozen of the other. Since I like this ship, I prefer to use the simiplest justification and say that this vision of the Ambassador was they way she always looked. My view of the evidence is that other explanations are more torturous and require a greater suspension of disbelief. I really doubt Mr. Probert and the fine folks at SOTL intended to "rewrite history" any more than they intend to invade Poland. But one of them is going to have to come in here tell be that they didn't intend this to be an image of USS Ambassador, lead ship of the Ambassador Class (Ambassador is disturbingly fun to type) before I'll believe it.

Your view of the evidence may be different. You can choose see things differently.

(The reference picture is from Tobias Richter and appears in the SOTL calendar, so it as "official" as the beauty shot.)

 

[Dukhat]

It really wouldn't be simple. Now you have to explain this new Ambassador's NX-Registry, why it is so low and why we've never heard of this new Ambassador class ship.

More over you have to justify why this particular Ambassador has the exact same registry number as the Expanded Universe U.S.S. Ambassador.

It's six of one, or half a dozen of the other. Since I like this ship, I prefer to use the simiplest justification and say that this vision of the Ambassador was they way she always looked. My view of the evidence is that other explanations are more torturous and require a greater suspension of disbelief. I really doubt Mr. Probert and the fine folks at SOTL intended to "rewrite history" any more than they intend to invade Poland. But one of them is going to have to come in here tell be that they didn't intend this to be an image of USS Ambassador, lead ship of the Ambassador Class (Ambassador is disturbingly fun to type) before I'll believe it.

Your view of the evidence may be different. You can choose see things differently.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but as beautiful as that render is, it's not canon, and therefore its registry number is of no relevance to an in-universe discussion of the differences between Probert's and Sternbach's designs.

Mr. Probert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall him stating that Rick's design is the definitive Ambassador class, and that Andy's original design was not meant to supercede that, even as the prototype ship. It was just a fun project, nothing more.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but as beautiful as that render is, it's not canon, and therefore its registry number is of no relevance to an in-universe discussion of the differences between Probert's and Sternbach's designs.

Ah, but tomorrow, CBS or PPC could decide that this is the definitive version... "canon" is really pretty fluid these days, isn't it?

Mr. Probert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall him stating that Rick's design is the definitive Ambassador class, and that Andy's original design was not meant to supercede that, even as the prototype ship. It was just a fun project, nothing more.

None of these ships actually exist, do they?

We saw, as I recall, exactly four Ambassador class ships on TV. The Enterprise C, The Zhukov, the Excalibur, and the Yamaguchi. Am I missing any others?

Nobody is suggesting, even for an instant, that the ships seen on our TV screens need to be replaced. You seem to be arguing against that point, but it's a point that not a single person has actually made... hence, it's sort of a straw man argument, isn't it?

The argument being made is that there could be significantly different hulls in a single class.

The counter-argument, as far as I can tell, is "NO! I DON'T LIKE THAT SO IT'S WRONG." Maybe I'm mischaracterizing that, but that's honestly how it's come across to me.

Nobody is telling anyone to go toss out their TNG DVD set to buy a "revised SFX version" anytime soon.

All we're saying is that this is a great design and that there's no reason that the USS Ambassador, or perhaps the USS Adelphi, the USS Exeter, the USS Gandhi, the USS Horatio, or the USS Valdemar... all Ambassador-class ships which were mentioned but never actually seen... might not look exactly like Andrew's design.

 

[WinstonSmith]

Cary, I think there was another ambassador called the zhukov, that was a redress of yamaguchi. talking of which, the model was actually altered a fair bit (including moving the nacelles and the entire saucer section) between enterprise and yamaguchi, so there is precedent for alteration within the class.

this ex astris scientia article goes into more detail;
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ambassador.htm

 

[Amaris]

I love both designs. The Sternbach Ambassador class has endeared itself to me (it is my favorite class of starship), but looking at this Probert design, well, I have to say it's just gorgeous, and both ships look powerful and graceful in their own way.

 

[Dukhat]

Ah, but tomorrow, CBS or PPC could decide that this is the definitive version... "canon" is really pretty fluid these days, isn't it?

Sure, but we both know that the odds of that happening are slim to none, right?

None of these ships actually exist, do they?

The ships on the screen exist in Star Trek canon, which was my point. I know they don't exist in real life. But I'm on a Trek BBS, so that's what I'm discussing.

Nobody is suggesting, even for an instant, that the ships seen on our TV screens need to be replaced. You seem to be arguing against that point, but it's a point that not a single person has actually made... hence, it's sort of a straw man argument, isn't it?

I think you're making this more serious than I was making it. All I was saying is that there's no hard-and-fast rule that just because hulls are significantly different, we can still call it the same class. I know what the navy does, and this is not the navy. This is Starfleet.

The counter-argument, as far as I can tell, is "NO! I DON'T LIKE THAT SO IT'S WRONG." Maybe I'm mischaracterizing that, but that's honestly how it's come across to me.

Again, you're taking this more seriously than I was intending. And could you please point out where I sounded like I was whining like a 5-year old about being right and everyone else is wrong? Because I'm pretty sure I did nothing of the sort.

All we're saying is that this is a great design and that there's no reason that the USS Ambassador, or perhaps the USS Adelphi, the USS Exeter, the USS Gandhi, the USS Horatio, or the USS Valdemar... all Ambassador-class ships which were mentioned but never actually seen... might not look exactly like Andrew's design.

I know it's a great design. I've stated that repeatedly. I'm just of the opinion that it's not the same class. You can think whatever you want.

 

[Patrickivan]

Someone refresh my memory. Was the Enterprise C in Yesterday's Enterprise actually referred to as an Ambassador Class? I haven't seen the ep in years. I should watch it myself- my wife just bought me the entire TNG collection for our anniversary yesterday!!! Man was I excited when I first saw that episode! Seeing another Enterprise was amazing to me.

Okay- that said. I love the Probert design so much. Mostly because of the design elements showing a clean transition from the Excelsior to the Galaxy Class. This is one of my favorite ships next to the Connie refit and the Galaxy Class.

I do however really like the E-C and this is because it shows more of a direct transition from the E-A. It's simple with straight lines. Not complex- and despite it's class title, looks tougher in that sense.

So perhaps Proberts Ambassador can be considered a refit like the Constitution. That seems like a nice way to work it into the universe. Though it could never be an Enterprise. <sigh>

 

[Dukhat]

Someone refresh my memory. Was the Enterprise C in Yesterday's Enterprise actually referred to as an Ambassador Class?

Not to my knowledge. There were Okudagrams with the class name on them, but the only episode AFAIK where someone says the words "Ambassador class" is "Conspiracy," where it's given as the class of the Horatio (which we never saw except as floating debris).

 

[Kemaiku]

A beautiful design, I could easily see it being the proto-type of the class.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Someone refresh my memory. Was the Enterprise C in Yesterday's Enterprise actually referred to as an Ambassador Class?

Not to my knowledge. There were Okudagrams with the class name on them, but the only episode AFAIK where someone says the words "Ambassador class" is "Conspiracy," where it's given as the class of the Horatio (which we never saw except as floating debris).

Weren't there labels under the "wall of ships" in the 1701-D's conference room? I thought that there were, and that this is where it was established that the 1701-C was "ambassador class."

Of course, the sculpture up there looks like Andrew's design, not like what we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise." So... one COULD argue that it's "canon" that the Enterprise-C was Andrew's design.

You can see this pretty clearly from this page:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Observation_lounge

Basically, we have two sources of information re: the Ambassador-class Enterprise. The "wall of ships" and the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise." These two sources of information are contradictory. Both were seen on-screen (one more than the other, of course).

Of course, for the 1701-E, we got the "Yesterday's Enterprise" version on the wall...

http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/more-of-the-golden-starships/

I guess we can attribute this to the same process by which the TOS Enterprise regularly grew domes on the aft of the engines, or grew spikes on the front, in the same episode, huh?

 

[B.J.]

I don't think the conference room ships had labels. But I think the 1701-C bridge had a dedication plaque that unfortunately wasn't seen very well at all. (See here for a bad pic that might not be it.) Considering that Probert's early size comparison chart called that design "USS Ambassador", I think it's a safe assumption that the 1701-C was called an Ambassador class.

 

[Dukhat]

Weren't there labels under the "wall of ships" in the 1701-D's conference room? I thought that there were, and that this is where it was established that the 1701-C was "ambassador class."

Nope, the sculptures did not have labels. What you're probably thinking of, as B.J. pointed out, is Probert's size chart, which labels the intermediary ship the "U.S.S. Ambassador." The chart doesn't specifically call the ship the Ent-C, just like it doesn't call the U.S.S. Excelsior the Ent-B.

You can see the chart here:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/excelsior-size.htm

 

[Maverisms]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but as beautiful as that render is, it's not canon, and therefore its registry number is of no relevance to an in-universe discussion of the differences between Probert's and Sternbach's designs.

Mr. Probert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall him stating that Rick's design is the definitive Ambassador class, and that Andy's original design was not meant to supercede that, even as the prototype ship. It was just a fun project, nothing more.

I never claimed it it was canon. This is fanon discussion debating the merits of various interpretations of the "evidence." One has gone from Trek fan to lunacy when one thinks one can arbitrate canon.

The Arbiters of canon are the people who get paid to make filmed Trek. Period.

If we can agree on that, then everything else I said stands. In order to fanon this ship logically you must deal with all of the evidence that says it the original USS Ambassador. This requires you to decide what contributes to your fanon (TAS, S&S, etc).

As for intent, as I said, I doubt Mr. Probert or the STOL people intended to rewrite history (read: canon), but I also think they mean this to be USS Ambassador. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

My comment wrt to them telling me otherwise was to say the fanon interpretation I've supported here is not contradicted by what we know, so I will continue to support it until they come along and tell me they meant this image to represent something else (a later refit of the Ambassador for example).

My comment wrt to it being canon was based on the S&S expanded universe which is it's own canon. That's not a quibble as I specifically called out the canon source in that comment.

 

[Patrickivan]

Okay- then we have the non-canon fact that the C is an Ambassador Class.

We have the canon fact that the C was also whatever class ship shown in the briefing room on the D is. Though we're making that assumption based on the chain of evidence of ships shown before and after.

None-the-less, since Probert's Ambassador is shown there, I'll camp in the canon side and just go with it being a refit version of the E-C type "ambassador".

But I have no real logical explanation for such a drastic design change while remaining the same class- if they are indeed the same class name. Since it's not confirmed for the E-C or Probert's E-C. So we get to pretty much decide what we want to believe here.

And my mother-in-law is staying here and I'm drinking, so it's difficult to formulate and convey logical thoughts. So I shall get back to watching Star Trek 2009