New Ambassador-Class

[Maverisms]

E-C is Ambassador class, in canon.

Chain of reasoning:

Many ships of this class have been shown on screen and named. Therefore, if any one of those ships is stated to be Ambassador class, all are. (Until some newer canon source contradicts that).

USS Zuhkov, NCC-62136 appeared in "Data's Day." In "Brothers", The Zuhkov is listed on display on the bridge, same registry, class given: Ambassador.

Later the fact that the name was misspelled (it should be Zhukov) and the registry was out line with other Ambassadors was noted and fixed. Another version of the display was used in "All Good Things" listing USS Zhukov, NCC-26136. Obviously production intent was that these were the same ship, but given the exceptionally narrow definition of canon in play atm, I'll disregard this "second" ship.

If NCC-62136 is Ambassador class, NCC-1701-C is also Ambassador class in canon.

 

[Tino]

Hi there,

thanks for all the replies. So Tobias Richter's "U.S.S. Ambassador" is the original of the Enterprise-C? Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me - especially when you look at the observation lounges models. The golden E-C model looks more like Richters pictures than the model they've made for the series.

As for what version is s canon ... I'm sorry my question stirred up some discussions. For me, the on-screen Ambassador-class is canon. Tobias Richters model is fanporn. Real good fanporn. :-)

 

[Dukhat]

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.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Because Tobias put "NX-10521" on his mesh, I thought you were implying that this was the definitive prototype for the Ambassador class. I now see that you were just stating your opinion. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Hi there,

thanks for all the replies. So Tobias Richter's "U.S.S. Ambassador" is the original of the Enterprise-C? Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me - especially when you look at the observation lounges models. The golden E-C model looks more like Richters pictures than the model they've made for the series.

As for what version is s canon ... I'm sorry my question stirred up some discussions. For me, the on-screen Ambassador-class is canon. Tobias Richters model is fanporn. Real good fanporn. :-)

Tino,

Just one correction... this design is not Tobias's design. It is Andrew Probert's design. Andrew was attempting to transform his concept into a high-quality 3D model on his own, but chose to work along with Tobias because of the "movie quality" of all of Tobias's work.

Get that? It's Tobias's MODEL, but it's Andrew Probert's DESIGN.

FYI... if you don't know who Andrew Probert is... he's the guy who designed the "Star Trek - The Next Generation's" 1701-D and did much of the redesign of the 1701 for "Star Trek - The Motion Picture."

Tobias is a wonderful, highly-skilled modeler, but Andrew is a fantastic conceptual design guy, and in this case, the principle credit for the design goes to Andrew.

 

[Patrickivan]

Hi there,

thanks for all the replies. So Tobias Richter's "U.S.S. Ambassador" is the original of the Enterprise-C? Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me - especially when you look at the observation lounges models. The golden E-C model looks more like Richters pictures than the model they've made for the series.

As for what version is s canon ... I'm sorry my question stirred up some discussions. For me, the on-screen Ambassador-class is canon. Tobias Richters model is fanporn. Real good fanporn. :-)

Tino,

Just one correction... this design is not Tobias's design. It is Andrew Probert's design. Andrew was attempting to transform his concept into a high-quality 3D model on his own, but chose to work along with Tobias because of the "movie quality" of all of Tobias's work.

Get that? It's Tobias's MODEL, but it's Andrew Probert's DESIGN.

FYI... if you don't know who Andrew Probert is... he's the guy who designed the "Star Trek - The Next Generation's" 1701-D and did much of the redesign of the 1701 for "Star Trek - The Motion Picture."

Tobias is a wonderful, highly-skilled modeler, but Andrew is a fantastic conceptual design guy, and in this case, the principle credit for the design goes to Andrew.

YA! "Get That?"

 

[Kaiser]

i like the fact this calender has alot of Fan made designs so for me i will purchase this ASAP

 

[publiusr]

Jeff Robb of the old GEC had a similar vessel--it is called the council class and can be seen here, though his original GEC article is more in-depth
http://www.treknology.org/history3.htm

 

[Kaiser]

Jeff Robb of the old GEC had a similar vessel--it is called the council class and can be seen here, though his original GEC article is more in-depth
http://www.treknology.org/history3.htm

I liked this design that i actually did E-mail him for the cross section

 

[Cary L. Brown]

YA! "Get That?"

Hey, I wasn't trying to be harsh...

 

[Patrickivan]

Oh I know- I just got a kick out of it and laughed when I read it.

 

[throwback]

For myself, if a member of the production staff has an involvement in the project, then that project is canon. Thus, for me, I view the calendars as canonical.

I recently viewed the technifold over at Drex Files. The Ambassador-class starship has a crew capability of 1240 officers and enlisted, and the class leader was commissioned in 2325. The crew size is surprising - I never expected this class of ship to have as many people in its crew.

If the Galaxy-class and the Ambassador-class starships have roughly the same number of personnel, does this mean the ships of the former class are essentially filled with large empty spaces?

I am thinking that the U.S.S. Grissom may be of this class. She was described as having a crew of 1250. (I don't agree that the ship's crew size changed as a response to the war.)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

The Galaxy has TONS of unused space, according to the TNGTM and other sources, for future retrofits, mission-specific equipment, etc. Also, huge stuff like tursiops, an indoor mall, gigantic arboretums, more luxurious quarters, more sci labs, bigger cargo and shuttle bays, more extensive medical facilities, etc etc etc.

We saw in the TOS films that people either doubled in quarters or got shoved in bunk rooms. The Ambassador probably continues to follow that paradigm, wheras the Galaxy becomes a "college town in space"

 

[Dukhat]

For myself, if a member of the production staff has an involvement in the project, then that project is canon. Thus, for me, I view the calendars as canonical.

You're welcome to think that all you want, but if the ships in that calendar weren't shown on screen, they are not canon.

 

[ALF]

It's nice, but I prefer the canon "screen" version over this.

 

[largo]

For myself, if a member of the production staff has an involvement in the project, then that project is canon. Thus, for me, I view the calendars as canonical.

You're welcome to think that all you want, but if the ships in that calendar weren't shown on screen, they are not canon.

everyone's entitled to their own personal canon. which is as it should be.

 

[Patrickivan]

For myself, if a member of the production staff has an involvement in the project, then that project is canon. Thus, for me, I view the calendars as canonical.

You're welcome to think that all you want, but if the ships in that calendar weren't shown on screen, they are not canon.

For myself, if a member of the production staff has an involvement in the project, then that project is canon. Thus, for me, I view the calendars as canonical.

You're welcome to think that all you want, but if the ships in that calendar weren't shown on screen, they are not canon.

everyone's entitled to their own personal canon. which is as it should be.

throwback and largo, I don't want to stray too off topic here, but the phrase personal canon is a non-sequitur. Marriam-Wedster defines canon as:

4
a : an accepted principle or rule
b : a criterion or standard of judgment
c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms

Expanding upon that, those rules are set by those in authority of the subject in question. In this case, the creators of the Star Trek universe.

So we can believe what we want, but it's their universe.

That said, it begs to question then, why can't this ambassador be canon? Using the definition above, if the people who have had the intimate experience with Star Trek make something up, regardless of on-screen or not, shouldn't it then boil down to whether or not they say it exists in the universe?

Anyway- more a topic for another thread. I just like this ship and if someone who was professionally involved with Star Trek says make it so, then maybe it should. Or maybe jsut the rights owners should. Regardless, it would be a shame to let this ship sit in fan limbo.​

 

[Dukhat]

That said, it begs to question then, why can't this ambassador be canon? Using the definition above, if the people who have had the intimate experience with Star Trek make something up, regardless of on-screen or not, shouldn't it then boil down to whether or not they say it exists in the universe?

Unfortunately not, when it comes to Trek canonicity. I would say that I have as much intimate experience with Star Trek as those guys do, the only difference being that my starship drawings aren't going to be on a calendar anytime soon. But my drawings aren't any more truly canon than theirs.

Now am I saying that I wouldn't want to have seen those ships onscreen? No. I would be the first person to say that I would have loved to see Probert's Ambassador in TNG. I would love to see any ship that Mark Rademaker designs to be on the screen. But until that happens, they have the same validity as my own ship designs have: non-canon.

*Disclaimer* The overall shape of Probert's Ambassador, as seen on the Enterprise history wall in the first few seasons of TNG, could be an indication that ships like that actually exist in the Trek universe. Since the wall models were very inaccurate as to the ships they were supposed to represent (and were invalidated later, i.e. the Ent-B), an argument could be made that it's entirely possible that those models didn't represent the Enterprise history, but rather just other generic ships in Starfleet.

 

[largo]

people travelling at warp 10 and transforming into horny newts is also on-screen canon. canon sucks.

 

[Patrickivan]

people travelling at warp 10 and transforming into horny newts is also on-screen canon. canon sucks.

Voyager doesn't count

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

It was onscreen. Totally canon.

Rotate your viewscreen to fit that.