Starship Construction Timeline

[ProwlAlpha]

What about the Prometheus? I prefer the NX-74913 rather than the NX-59650.

Well, I consider that the show's people just group a number of vessels that look similar and placed them into the same class. Example: All the different variations of the Miranda Class ranging from the Reliant to Lantree to Saratoga. Same hull but they are different, yet they call the Bozeman a completely different class even though the Soyuz is just a Miranda with extra greebles on it.

 

[Timo]

Real-world navies may choose to "bunch up" roughly similar ships in a class, or adopt subclass designations, or refer to the variants as completely different classes. Starfleet should probably be allowed to do the same...

Perhaps the Soyuz deserves a class identifier of her own because her mission is fundamentally different from those of all other Miranda variants? No other Miranda dedicates quite that much mass and space to unique gear, after all.

Or perhaps the Soyuz is considered a Miranda class vessel, a subtype, but our heroes felt it necessary to use its otherwise very rarely mentioned subclassification because it was crucially important to the situation at hand: the subtype had been retired, but the umbrella class had not.

The Prometheus is a bit of a problem. A 59000 range registry doesn't suit the design too well, as both the engines and the primary hull shape appear commonly in ships of the 70000+ range, but not in any other ships below the 60000 range. And it's unlikely that Starfleet Intelligence would bother to paint a fake registry on the ship... A fake registry in the documentation would be quite possible, to make any Klingon or Romulan spies think that this vessel was an old and irrelevant testbed - but if those agents got close enough to read the actual pennant paint, they could no longer be fooled!

Perhaps the separation gimmick was a test program initiated in the mid-24th century, and the ship's hull was that old - but the engines were new, and the ship had been re-registered as the result of this significant refit, leaving the pennant painters a few steps behind?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SpyOne]

The Prometheus is just too easy: Starfleet intentionally painted the wrong number on the hull to confuse spies.

 

[Unicron]

I like to think of the Soyuz as a highly specialized subclass of the Miranda design family, myself.

 

[Herbert1]

^I imagined that the Miranda-class were just the class 6 supply ships with the crew of 26 as shown as USS Lantree NCC-1837 in the episode "Natural Selection". I imagined that as time went by that the space frames would be modified for different tasks and the ships might be renamed so that the better names with more tradition could be used for newer ships.

Are you going to deal with the DS9 "Frankenfleet" at all Dukhat?

 

[Timo]

Since the Lantree displayed the lowest registry ever for a ship of that particular shape, I sort of imagine that USS Miranda was the first-ever ship built to that design, and USS Lantree was something like the fifth ship built to that design (but possibly later upgraded, modified, repurposed and so forth). Fan works suggest one Surya class as the original, TOS-style form of ships that would eventually evolve into the Reliant, but the Surya registries begin with NCC-1850. The same fan works leave an attractive gap wherein the original Miranda class could span NCC-1833-1842. By the late 23rd century, there'd be several subtypes - but in the 24th century, subclass names would be dropped as impractical, and Starfleet would begin to call all the variants by the name of the earliest vessel, NCC-1833, USS Miranda.

The same could happen to the Constitutions: there'd be lots of internally or externally distinct variants, including the TMP-refitted ship and the E-A, but they'd eventually all be collectively called by the name of NCC-1700, USS Constitution, for the sake of simplicity.

Are you going to deal with the DS9 "Frankenfleet" at all Dukhat?

I wonder if there are any problems there. It sounds straightforward enough: the ships reusing the Intrepid hull are safely in the mid-60000 range (thus probably preceding the Intrepid herself, but not by much), while the ships reusing Excelsior components (but possibly toying with the scale) are in the comfortable mid-40000s. The one ship reusing the Constitution saucer goes unregistered, but we might imagine any registry in the Miranda range or lower.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Are you going to deal with the DS9 "Frankenfleet" at all Dukhat?

I'm kind of split down the middle when it comes to these ships. Unlike the BoBW kitbashes, these ships were really never meant to be taken seriously or scrutinized intensely (that's why they were in the far background in shots). However, some of them actually helped my timeline out.

The Yeager and the Elkins really don't help me out, because their registries are pretty consistent with their designs (although I'm ignoring the Elkins's Connie nacelles, or at least chalking them up to a quick repair job after the original nacelles were damaged). The "Jupp" (Connie saucer and two Connie nacelles), while a consistent design, doesn't have a registry number, so it's useless to guess its date of construction. However, the Centaur, Curry, Raging Queen, and the "Hutzel" (three-nacelled Excelsior saucer) gave me some good info.

The Curry NCC-42254 and the Raging Queen NCC-42284 (the numbers are so close, and the designs virtually identical except for the 90 degree orientation of the nacelles, that I think they're the same class of ship), and the Centaur NCC-42043, prove that there were Excelsior variants of the same high registry numbers as ships like the Hood (42296), the Frederickson (42111), the Charleston (42285), etc., which construction dates I placed between 2320 and 2329. The Hutzel, while having no registry number, has a design consistent with the above ships, so it's in there too.

Because there are conjectural classes like the Istanbul, Surak, Merced, and Mediterranean classes with similar registry numbers, I speculated that these models might represent those classes. But that feeling is not set in stone for me.

Re: the Renaissance class: Although Timo is enamored with the idea that the Centaur could be of this class, my research disagrees. The mission of the Aries in "Peak Performance" is a years-long deep space mission. I don't see a 210 meter ship equipped for such a mission. When Picard states that the Aries is a "relatively insignificant ship" he was comparing it to the Enterprise. In that context, an Ambassador class ship would be insignificant as well. I prefer that the Renaissance class is the original Ent-C design Andrew Probert created, which looks very different from the Ent-C as designed by Ed Miarecki and built by Greg Jein. It has far more attributes of a "mid-point" between the Excelsior and the Galaxy class, which I believe was what the Renaissance class was meant to be.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Determining what class a given ship falls into can be a complicated matter. It's not just a matter of external appearance, it's a matter of how the ship is equipped, what its capabilities are, etc. It's kind of like determining when a subspecies gets to be called a separate speiies.

Apparently, the Soyuz class is sufficiently different from the Miranda that it's a separate class, whereas the Enterprise-B is still considered an Excelsior class ship.

As for the Constellation and the Enterprise, it's a matter of debate (which was made a bit murkier when the TOS-R team decided to just reuse the Enterprise CGI model instead of recreating the AMT model in CGI, which Okuda admitted they would've liked to do, but time and budget dictated otherwise).

 

[Dukhat]

Determining what class a given ship falls into can be a complicated matter. It's not just a matter of external appearance, it's a matter of how the ship is equipped, what its capabilities are, etc. It's kind of like determining when a subspecies gets to be called a separate species.

Apparently, the Soyuz class is sufficiently different from the Miranda that it's a separate class, whereas the Enterprise-B is still considered an Excelsior class ship.

As for the Constellation and the Enterprise, it's a matter of debate (which was made a bit murkier when the TOS-R team decided to just reuse the Enterprise CGI model instead of recreating the AMT model in CGI, which Okuda admitted they would've liked to do, but time and budget dictated otherwise).

Agreed that it can be definitely murky (see Saladin and Hermes class differences...or lack of differences, as an example).

The funny thing about both the Soyuz class Bozeman and the Excelsior class Ent-B is that they were both supposed to be very different ships. In pre-production for Star Trek: Generations the Ent-B was going to be a new class of ship never seen before, but instead the decision was made to just use the Excelsior with added parts to be damaged later.

In "Cause and Effect" the ship was supposed to be a TOS Connie, but budgetary considerations nixed that idea. However, they were forced to re-use an old model because if they built a new one they could never use it again, since the Soyuz class had been retired 70+ years ago. And in my opinion, the Bozeman doesn't have enough differences to justify it being a new class. But, it is. Oh, well.

I was unaware of Okuda's plans to build a CGI replica of the AMT model for the Constellation. I admit I would have liked that idea.

 

[Unicron]

I keep thinking the original plan for the Bozeman was to be a new design, but they chose to heavily modify the existing Miranda model for budgetary reasons. The design that became the Constellation class was definitely intended to be Constitution class instead, and that's why Picard had such a model in his ready room in a few early episodes. The Enterprise B had long been conjectured as an Excelsior, so I'm not sure how big of an influence that was on the filmmakers. But tacky modifications to the Excelsior model aside, I think it was a good choice.

I agree it's very difficult to judge class or type distinctions without having some frame of reference for the vessel's capabilities, particularly when one design might be similar to another in visual terms, and perhaps part of the same design tree, but have a completely different role.

 

[SpyOne]

I keep thinking the original plan for the Bozeman was to be a new design, but they chose to heavily modify the existing Miranda model for budgetary reasons. The design that became the Constellation class was definitely intended to be Constitution class instead, and that's why Picard had such a model in his ready room in a few early episodes.

I had heard something very similar: the Bozeman was supposed to be a new model but that wasn't in the budget.
And the Stargazer was a Constitution Class when the episode was filmed, but (according the the Encyclopedia) the producers decided to build a new model after it was filmed. From what I've heard elsewhere, I suspect that decision was actually made above Berman/Roddenberry's level, as Paramount seemed resistant to the idea of Constitution Class ships appearing on any of the TV shows.

The Enterprise-B kinda had to be an Excelsior: The Excelsior was the new biggest and coolest ship in Starfleet, taking over that job from the beloved Constitution Class. Making another class to take that away from Excelsior within a decade or two would take some major explaining. Since they needed the B to be commissioned while Kirk was still alive, it really couldn't be anything but an Excelsior.

While I'm at it, what is the Excelsior named for? I've encountered 3 ideas for this, but none of them seem particularly appropriate for a starship:
Excelsior is a name for 3-point type, a size smaller than brilliant.
Excelsior was a brand-name for packing material made of shaved wood that, like kleenex, became synonymous with the product itself.
Excelsior is a Latin word that was adopted as the motto of New York State, translated as "ever upward".

While that last one makes a cool motto for a ship, it doesn't really strike me as an appropriate name. It's like naming a ship USS Sic Semper Tyrannis, or USS Qui Transtulit Sustinet. That goes on the plaque on the bridge, but you name the ship the USS New York (or USS Virginia, or USS Connecticut).
Frankly, "he who transplanted, sustains" is a pretty cool motto for a colony supply ship, and "thus always to tyrants" is a good motto for any Starfleet vessel, but they don't make good names.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

The USS or SS Tsiolkovsky was supposed to be a different Oberth Class, actually Oberth Class as we see was not supposed to be Oberth. The USS Hood from Encounter at Farpoint was supposed to be bigger per Andrew Probert. The USS Raman from Interface was not supposed to be an Oberth. The USS Pegasus from The Pegasus was supposed to be an Cheyenne Class, but they turned it into an Oberth.

 

[Timo]

And the Stargazer was a Constitution Class when the episode was filmed, but (according the the Encyclopedia) the producers decided to build a new model after it was filmed.

Hmm... Note that when the live-action bits were filmed, Picard's ready room had already been emptied of its tabletop Constellation model, supposedly because it was needed as reference for building the full-size photographic model of the Stargazer. So the decision probably was made during or just before filming, not after it - but in any case so late that some of the dialogue had been shot with the other class name. Whether this was because the decision had not yet been made, or because the decision had been made but nobody had gotten along to correcting the scripts yet, we don't really know.

The Enterprise-B kinda had to be an Excelsior: The Excelsior was the new biggest and coolest ship in Starfleet, taking over that job from the beloved Constitution Class.

To be sure, in ST3 the Excelsior had been the villain ship. It was far from certain that she would ever become associated with the heroes: after all, her main design criteria for ST3 had been "looks buffoonish and intimidating, fails to deliver". She lived up to that in ST4, too.

Of course, by the time the E-B was shown, there had already been a change of plans and ST6 had made the Excelsior, if not hero ship, then at least a respectable sidekick ship. And the first half of TNG had shown an Excelsior class ship in the "lineage relief" on the Observation Lounge wall, supposedly marking the E-B (although the relief would turn out to have several inconsistencies in that respect, and others).

However, had the producers wanted, they could easily have invented an all-new class for the E-B. They'd just have to explain why this class was never seen in TNG even though the Excelsior class was frequently seen and the Ambassador class of the E-C was occasionally glimpsed...

On the issue of naming, there'd be pretty broad precedent by the time of ST3: "enterprise" is a concept, "constitution" is a document or perhaps a quality, "Lexington" and half a dozen others are battle sites, and "Potemkin" and half a dozen others are people. "Antares" is a star (literally "Opposite Mars"). Why wouldn't an ambition fit in that mix?

Majestic ships are named after stranger things in the real world. The masive fleet carrier USS Shangri-La was named after a joke President Roosevelt cracked, on the basis of a popular novel of the time...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ProwlAlpha]

It would have been nice if TPTB named the new class of the Enterprise-B something else rather than the generic, Excelsior class. Its like they had new real creativity. Like the naming of various Miranda variants, the Miranda Class, yet named the Bozeman a Soyuz class. At least they didnt call the Nebulas, a Galaxy Class. Another example would be class naming of the USS Elkins as Intrepid Variant or the Curry as Excelsior Variant.

 

[Herbert1]

^Excelsior also means "superior"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior

Lost Horizon was also a movie released in 1937 and Roosevelt named the presidential retreat in Maryland for the mythical Shangri-La. President Eisenhower would later rename the retreat for his son David, becoming Camp David.

Constitution may have been named for the US Navy ship "Old Ironsides".

We have had a USS Tripoli in TNG, I think it is named for the US Navy ships and for the site of the Barbary Wars. Even though the Star Trek Encyclopedia says is is named for the capital of Libya.

As for making the NCC-1701-B an Excelsior-class starship, it was established in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual that the second Enterprise was an Excelsior-class starship and the starship display showing the silhouettes of starships named Enterprise in the observation lounge during Season 1 was meant to be an Excelsior-class starship.

I've read that they thought fans would be disappointed if they re-used the Excelsior model again without it appearing different from the last Star Trek film and so John Eaves designed new modifications to the Excelsior model.

Also remember that the decision to make the NCC-1701-B Enterprise an Excelsior-class starship may have been made before it became such a widely used ship model in TNG. I understand that Andy Probert's painting of the Ambassador-class starship was meant to be used as a matte painting. IIRC, they were afraid that the painting wouldn't hold up and so they decided to use the Excelsior model. I believe that it was in episode 6, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and the USS Fearless was originally meant to be Probert's painting of the Ambassador.

 

[Captain Robert April]

In the cases of both the Stargazer and the E-B, it was essentially a case of the art department dragging the producers back to what had already been established and making them stick with it.

 

[Unicron]

The USS Pegasus from The Pegasus was supposed to be an Cheyenne Class, but they turned it into an Oberth.

Actually, Rick Sternbach confirmed in a thread not long ago that an early concept for the Pegasus was a sort of Ambassador type design with a Miranda/Nebula configuration, but I don't recall any mention of it being intended to be a Cheyenne, not from him anyway. Memory Alpha does suggest that it was meant to be a Cheyenne class and that an unusual panel visible onscreen, which seems to be a sort of nacelle diagram with paired nacelles, is proof of this as a holdover. But it's hard to judge that as being valid or not, so I'm not really sure about the Cheyenne idea. It's always possible that both designs were considered before they just decided to save money and reuse the Oberth.