Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

[Macintosh]

What we saw was a Miranda class starship being involved in a Top Secret operation, while The Enterprise was relegated to being a training ship.

I mean, if you really start to look at things, by the 2280's the Constitution was definitely not much of a "Front line Starship".

There had to be something between the Constitution and the Excelsior that was meant to "awe and inspire".

Yeah it would make sense...but as we apparently have decided...No Screen, No Canon

I would imagine the Shangri-La-class fills that Constitution-Excelsior gap now as a sort of turbo-charged beefed-up Constitution-class, possibly with some elements of Excelsior engine/power tech going by the shape of that secondary hull and oversized impulse engines... and it's canon because we saw a model of one in the Titan-A's observation lounge. Sigh.

 

[fireproof78]

I would imagine the Shangri-La-class fills that hole now as a sort of turbo-charged beefed-up Constitution-class, possibly with some elements of Excelsior engine/power tech going by the shape of that secondary hull... and it's canon because we saw a model of one in the Titan-A's observation lounge. Sigh.

Definitely a good contemporary ship to the Constitution and Miranda.

 

[Noname Given]

Now I can finally make this comparison showing why the G doesn't fit

Um if you add the 1701 (TOS), 1701 & 1701-A (TMP), 1701-B, 1701-C, actually then no the 1701-G isn't really an outlier.
(Although I too didn't care for them re-naming the Titan-A to the Enterprise-G myself.)

Firstly, every other Enterprise so far was the pinnacle of Starfleet engineering. With the G they spent an entire season telling us what a rustbucket she is. So no progression here.

Secondly, we have the botched up and contrived background story of the refit. Was it just some raw materials or more as dialogue suggests when Picard referes to her as Riker's old command.

Thirdly, it doesn't make much sense that Starfleet thought NCC-80102 did something so impressive that its successor deserved a prefix, yet has no qualms erasing the name and registry.

Fourthly, I'm not a fan of "Class Roman Numeral" designations.

And lastly, minimal effort was made to bring the 23rd century Shangri La class to the 25th century so it looks oddly out of place.

So, basically everything about this ship just doesn't work out. It's the biggest mistake they made this season IMO.

To be fair. The 1701-A was retired/decommissioned about 5 years (at best) after she was first commissioned - so I don't know if 'pinnacle of engineering' holds for that ship either. She too was a refit of an older ship renamed at the last minute.

 

[Racefuel]

I would imagine the Shangri-La-class fills that Constitution-Excelsior gap now as a sort of turbo-charged beefed-up Constitution-class, possibly with some elements of Excelsior engine/power tech going by the shape of that secondary hull and oversized impulse engines... and it's canon because we saw a model of one in the Titan-A's observation lounge. Sigh.

We know it existed but not when.

Now the Picard logs that CBS put out had the Titan entering service in 2289 I think..but groupbrain here on this forum has declared those to not be binding, so all we know is it existed

 

[Racefuel]

Um if you add the 1701 (TOS), 1701 & 1701-A (TMP), 1701-B, 1701-C, actually then no the 1701-G isn't really an outlier.
(Although I too didn't care for them re-naming the Titan-A to the Enterprise-G myself.)



To be fair. The 1701-A was retired/decommissioned about 5 years (at best) after she was first commissioned - so I don't know if 'pinnacle of engineering' holds for that ship either. She too was a refit of an older ship renamed at the last minute.

TUC happened in 2293, TVH was in 2286, so its a minimum of 6 years if you assume the E-A was a 100% brand new ship which TBH it probably was not given its initial bridge design

 

[cooleddie74]

The 1701-A didn't even have its familiar bridge module until 2287 and just before the ship had to leave Spacedock to go on the Nimbus III rescue mission. So at most some of those systems lasted just six years before she was mothballed.

 

[HotRod]

I would imagine the Shangri-La-class fills that Constitution-Excelsior gap now as a sort of turbo-charged beefed-up Constitution-class, possibly with some elements of Excelsior engine/power tech going by the shape of that secondary hull and oversized impulse engines... and it's canon because we saw a model of one in the Titan-A's observation lounge. Sigh.

Might I present another possible option for a ship to fill the Constitution/Excelsior void.....

I'd like to think that what we're looking at is a Crossfield class Starship. One that wasn't modified for the Spore Drive experiments. In my own personal head-canon, we already know what this looked like.....

Granted, this would be as it looked in, we'll say 2255. Atleast 10 years newer then the Constitution class. Perhaps the class was more successful then we think and they produced more then the 3 we know about. Perhaps, much like the Connie, they too were refit at some point and that is what we're seeing in Spacedock.

I'd like to think that by that point, it resembled somewhat of a mix between The Discovery and the "Planet of the Titans" Enterprise concept we know it's based on.

 

[Ronald Held]

Maybe Connies were still front line ship, but not the Enterprise. Whether for political reasons, I cannot say.

 

[Sci]

Firstly, every other Enterprise so far was the pinnacle of Starfleet engineering. With the G they spent an entire season telling us what a rustbucket she is. So no progression here.

Not a rustbucket, just not as tactically capable as the Shrike. Ship was only about five years old.

And I kine of like the idea of the USS Enterprise being a bit of an underdog for once.

Thirdly, it doesn't make much sense that Starfleet thought NCC-80102 did something so impressive that its successor deserved a prefix, yet has no qualms erasing the name and registry.

I don't think renaming the Titan-A to the Enterprise-G "erases" the name and registry, especially if they're commissioning a new Luna-class ship as the Titan-B.

Might I present another possible option for a ship to fill the Constitution/Excelsior void.....

I'd like to think that what we're looking at is a Crossfield class Starship. One that wasn't modified for the Spore Drive experiments. In my own personal head-canon, we already know what this looked like.....

Granted, this would be as it looked in, we'll say 2255. Atleast 10 years newer then the Constitution class. Perhaps the class was more successful then we think and they produced more then the 3 we know about. Perhaps, much like the Connie, they too were refit at some point and that is what we're seeing in Spacedock.

I'd like to think that by that point, it resembled somewhat of a mix between The Discovery and the "Planet of the Titans" Enterprise concept we know it's based on.

My headcanon is that the Crossfield class is actually older than the Constitution class, with the Glenn and the Discovery being refit for the spore drive as you suggest. Them being older would account for Discovery's relatively low registry number and for why Michael was suggesting the Constitution class to Tilly as a better assignment.

 

[HotRod]

Them being older would account for Discovery's relatively low registry number and for why Michael was suggesting the Constitution class to Tilly as a better assignment.

I don't put much stock in registry numbers being an absolute "tell" of a ships age. I mean, Discovery got its registry because someone liked Halloween.

But you're right about that convo. I had forgotten about that. Clearly, at least at that point, The Constitution was the "bee's knees" of Starship posting. I mean, The Enterprise was the flagship.

Still, with their size and clearly adaptable structure, I can't help but wonder if the Crossfield class managed to really make a name for themselves, beyond the "loss" of Discovery and Glenn.

 

[Sci]

I don't put much stock in registry numbers being an absolute "tell" of a ships age. I mean, Discovery got its registry because someone liked Halloween.

But you're right about that convo. I had forgotten about that. Clearly, at least at that point, The Constitution was the "bee's knees" of Starship posting. I mean, The Enterprise was the flagship.

Still, with their size and clearly adaptable structure, I can't help but wonder if the Crossfield class managed to really make a name for themselves, beyond the "loss" of Discovery and Glenn.

I speculate that they may have been produced around the same time the Einstein-class ships like the USS Kelvin were, circa the 2210s or 2220s. I think they reflect some similar design philosophies; maybe Starfleet was just building them bigger but slower in those days.

 

[Caeruleus]

I think that E-F is more advanced than E-G.

 

[HotRod]

I think that E-F is more advanced than E-G.

Why? My almost 2 year old cell phone is more powerful then a 20 year old laptop, despite being significantly smaller.

 

[DEWLine]

@HotRod thank you for rediscovering that imagery from the original DSC teaser! Yes, that is what I would also say non-spore drive-equipped Crossfield-class starships originally looked like!

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I don't put much stock in registry numbers being an absolute "tell" of a ships age. I mean, Discovery got its registry because someone liked Halloween.

But you're right about that convo. I had forgotten about that. Clearly, at least at that point, The Constitution was the "bee's knees" of Starship posting. I mean, The Enterprise was the flagship.

Still, with their size and clearly adaptable structure, I can't help but wonder if the Crossfield class managed to really make a name for themselves, beyond the "loss" of Discovery and Glenn.

I don't put stock in registry numbers being grouped for a class after the early 1700's were, and there might be some wiggle room for a registry being a little older than it seems due to R&D issues and reg#'s being assigned beforehand like the USN does.

But earlier numbers are more or less earlier ships. I've seen nothing to indicate any different.

 

[HotRod]

@HotRod thank you for rediscovering that imagery from the original DSC teaser! Yes, that is what I would also say non-spore drive-equipped Crossfield-class starships originally looked like!

Np. Here's a few more, just for funzies.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I treat Registry #'s like License Plate #'s.

It's pretty much arbitrary.

 

[HotRod]

I speculate that they may have been produced around the same time the Einstein-class ships like the USS Kelvin were, circa the 2210s or 2220s. I think they reflect some similar design philosophies; maybe Starfleet was just building them bigger but slower in those days.

That's pretty much how I feel about the Shepard, Walker, and Magee class ships. They all seem to have a few design traits that make me think of the Kelvin. Mostly the bridges on the Shepard and Magee, and the weapon ports on the Walker.

I could easily see them as being from a similar construction period as the Kelvin, tho perhaps a little newer with updated nacelles and such.

**In getting those images, I never realized just how much the Engle class looks like a contemporary to the NX Class. I could absolutely buy that the Engle is a 1st generation Federation Starship with updated nacelles.

But earlier numbers are more or less earlier ships. I've seen nothing to indicate any different.

Oh definitely. I'm just saying it's not a "set in stone" sorta thing. There's definitely exceptions.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Np. Here's a few more, just for funzies.

I really liked that older design. Much prefer it over those spindly little nacelles it got stuck with.

 

[Tuskin38]

Wasn't there also alleged leaked footage of another version of that early Crossfield design?

I don't think there has ever been confirmation if it was real or not

Edit:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies