What happened to the Ambassador-class?

[Dukhat]

Not according to onscreen material. Some designs can withstand the test of time, some can't. For every design that's around for 100 years, there is likely many more designs that aren't around even half that long, IMO.

And unfortunately we can only base our conclusions on what we see on screen. And the Ambassador isn't the only one. Starfleet had about 50 active starship classes by the TNG era, and we only saw between 8 and 10 of them making up the Dominion war fleets. There is zero indication seen or mentioned on screen as to why this was.

 

[somebuddyX]

You could also throw the Proto-Ambassador into the Ambassador family depending on your head canon.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

You could also throw the Proto-Ambassador into the Ambassador family depending on your head canon.

Proto-Ambassador? Isn't that just the Excelsior-class?

 

[CaptChris42]

Proto-Ambassador? Isn't that just the Excelsior-class?

No - the Probert painting shows the earlier version of the design, with more curves and a greater similarity to the Galaxy-class.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

No - the Probert painting shows the earlier version of the design, with more curves and a greater similarity to the Galaxy-class.

Is this canon, or just fun concept art?

 

[CaptChris42]

Is this canon, or just fun concept art?

It could be either, depending on how you interpret it.
It's visible onscreen, and there's a golden-sculpted wall model of it, too (well, a half sculpt, embedded on a wall)

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

It could be either, depending on how you interpret it.
It's visible onscreen, and there's a golden-sculpted wall model of it, too (well, a half sculpt, embedded on a wall)

The wall sculpture is abstract, doesn't count. What episode is the painting in? Even then, would it not simply be "just a painting" and not necessarily representative of an in-universe starship design? This all feels like conjecture.

 

[Dukhat]

As far as I know, Probert’s Ambassador design was never shown on screen other than that wall sculpture. And irregardless, the design is far too different from Sternbach’s version IMHO that they shouldn’t be considered the same class.

 

[drt]

Huh, never saw that before. Interesting that they basically used the same parts reshuffle as the Nebula-class did with Galaxy-class components.

 

[DonIago]

Unfortunately, the Ambassador-class was prematurely decommissioned when it was determined that their engines had a penchant for creating temporal anomalies when exposed to intense energy sources.

 

[somebuddyX]

The wall sculpture is abstract, doesn't count. What episode is the painting in? Even then, would it not simply be "just a painting" and not necessarily representative of an in-universe starship design? This all feels like conjecture.

I mean, there's a reason I said head canon. Whether it's canon or not isn't the point. It's like the proto-pegasus, the proto-nebula, the two Melbourne's theory, who was the Enterprise-A originally. There will never be 'real' answers so any head canon is as valid as the other

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I mean, there's a reason I said head canon. Whether it's canon or not isn't the point. It's like the proto-pegasus, the proto-nebula, the two Melbourne's theory, who was the Enterprise-A originally. There will never be 'real' answers so any head canon is as valid as the other

I must of read head-canon as canon, my sorries.

Speaking of head-canon, what about the Ent-A? Given it was decommissioned just 6 years later, I like to think it was either the Yorktown from TVH (which would mean the crew died, eeeeee), or it was just some retired mothballed ship with Enterprise sticker slapped on it. Either way, doesn't make sense to build a new ship and retire it 6 years later to make room for the Ent-B.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I must of read head-canon as canon, my sorries.

Speaking of head-canon, what about the Ent-A? Given it was decommissioned just 6 years later, I like to think it was either the Yorktown from TVH (which would mean the crew died, eeeeee), or it was just some retired mothballed ship with Enterprise sticker slapped on it. Either way, doesn't make sense to build a new ship and retire it 6 years later to make room for the Ent-B.

I think the Enterprise-A was decommissioned for a handful of reasons that collided.

First of all was the fact that the Constitution class itself was definitely getting old at that point - the original Enterprise was at least forty years old when it was destroyed, so the class design as a whole was fifty years old, right as the Excelsior class was ramping up production, to the point that they had a variant design already in the works.

Secondly, the Enterprise had just taken some MASSIVE structural damage in the fight against Chang's bird of prey - remember the big honking hole shot through the saucer? That was going to take some significant time/resource sink in order to patch it up and make the Enterprise ready to go on any more long term assignments.

And thirdly, the Enterprise's senior staff were all about to step down, removing a good chunk of the ship's experienced hands, meaning that they wouldn't be there to guide anyone new into the handling of the ship.

Only one of those issues could probably have kept the Enterprise-A flying. Two, maybe. All three? Starfleet weighed their options and decided if they were going to invest in an Enterprise, it might as well be a state of the art ship of the line, not an aging vessel in need of massive repairs and without the crew most familiar with her.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

The Ambassador didn't replace the Excelsior, why would the Galaxy replace the Ambassador? The design wouldn't even be that old, maybe 30-40 years?

The Ambassadors are, I believe, the in-canon oldest ships with "TNG" style fittings, rather than "Movie-era" and/or "Excelsior-style" fittings. Which implies they're some of the first ships to use the technology that would be matured in the Galaxies and Nebulas.

This could imply that the technology in the Ambassadors was evolving rapidly, and became obsolete just as rapidly. In 1933, the B-10 was the cutting edge of American heavy bomber technology, and by 1936 the B-17 made it obsolete. Something similar may have occured with the Ambassadors.

Or the technological jump could have been on the construction side. If some breakthrough in materials or building process meant that you could build a Galaxy for the same effort as an Ambassador used to take, why wouldn't you build the Galaxy? So only a handful of Ambassadors get built. Meanwhile, as Starfleet focuses on building its new shiny Galaxy-class explorers, the increasingly aged Excelsiors and Oberths are left to soldier on, handling the day-to-day tasks.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think the Enterprise-A was decommissioned for a handful of reasons that collided.

First of all was the fact that the Constitution class itself was definitely getting old at that point - the original Enterprise was at least forty years old when it was destroyed, so the class design as a whole was fifty years old, right as the Excelsior class was ramping up production, to the point that they had a variant design already in the works.

Secondly, the Enterprise had just taken some MASSIVE structural damage in the fight against Chang's bird of prey - remember the big honking hole shot through the saucer? That was going to take some significant time/resource sink in order to patch it up and make the Enterprise ready to go on any more long term assignments.

And thirdly, the Enterprise's senior staff were all about to step down, removing a good chunk of the ship's experienced hands, meaning that they wouldn't be there to guide anyone new into the handling of the ship.

Only one of those issues could probably have kept the Enterprise-A flying. Two, maybe. All three? Starfleet weighed their options and decided if they were going to invest in an Enterprise, it might as well be a state of the art ship of the line, not an aging vessel in need of massive repairs and without the crew most familiar with her.

The Constitution-class got a major face lift, so the redesign is more like 20 years old, not really old enough to warrant ditching. Lots of ships in Star Trek have been trashed in space battles and patched up, the Ent-A is no different. If the Ent-A was an existing ship renamed and the Excelsior-class Ent-B was almost finished and expected to launch later that year or the following year, I think these two factors would be "the" reasons to mothball the ship.

You make reasonable arguments, you do. I just think it's more "old ship, new name" plus "make way for Excelsior-class Ent-B" as the go-to reasons.

 

[Dukhat]

We don't know if the entire Constitution class was retired; only the Enterprise was going to be, in STIII. My head canon for the Enterprise-A being retired so early was for political reasons. Starfleet was probably in the process of building a new Excelsior class Enterprise-A to replace the original TMP version when the Whale Probe incident happened. To reward Kirk, they gave him a temporary Enterprise-A to command until the newer one was finished. Once that happened, they rechristened the new ship the Enterprise-B and retired the former vessel even though it was technically still spaceworthy. It's all politics.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

We don't know if the entire Constitution class was retired; only the Enterprise was going to be, in STIII. My head canon for the Enterprise-A being retired so early was for political reasons. Starfleet was probably in the process of building a new Excelsior class Enterprise-A to replace the original TMP version when the Whale Probe incident happened. To reward Kirk, they gave him a temporary Enterprise-A to command until the newer one was finished. Once that happened, they rechristened the new ship the Enterprise-B and retired the former vessel even though it was technically still spaceworthy. It's all politics.

Still, why retire a 6-year-old ship? That makes absolutely no sense. It works if the Ent-A was a retired ship pulled out of mothballs as a "gee, thanks, Kirk" kind of move. What do you think?

 

[Dukhat]

Still, why retire a 6-year-old ship? That makes absolutely no sense. It works if the Ent-A was a retired ship pulled out of mothballs as a "gee, thanks, Kirk" kind of move. What do you think?

Is there any kind of ironclad proof that the Enterprise-A was a 6-year-old ship?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Is there any kind of ironclad proof that the Enterprise-A was a 6-year-old ship?

Yes. TOS - 2266-69
TAS - 2270
TMP - 2273
TWOK / TSFS - 2285
TVH - 2286
TFF - 2287
TUC - 2293

 

[Dukhat]

Yes. TOS - 2266-69
TAS - 2270
TMP - 2273
TWOK / TSFS - 2285
TVH - 2286
TFF - 2287
TUC - 2293

How is that ironclad proof? I'm asking if you can provide proof that the A was a new ship or an old ship that was renamed.