StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If I recall Trek design history correctly, the Ambassador class was the technological predecessor to the Galaxy class. If you look at the ship's saucer section, you will notice that it has no impulse drive, just a set of RCS quads that can steer the ship, but which can't produce any real acceleration.

Now, Mike Wong notes in the Database on the main site that there is a strong possibility that the Galaxy class was a social experiment in bringing crew families along as motivation to keep the crew loyal to the state.

What does this have to do with the Ambassador class? Well, when viewed in this light and if the theory is true, it almost seems as though the idea were thus: "If you fail in combat situations or in protecting the ship from danger, you threaten the lives of your family. Sure, you can separate the saucer, but you'll lose over half your firepower and combat effectiveness in the process, and if you fail, your family is doomed to be marooned in space in an FTL Drive-less sitting duck. So you better be good soldiers, or your families will be dog-meat."

I further theorize that later there was a bad reaction to the Ambassador class being designed in such an extreme manner, so when it came time to design the Galaxy class they placed a couple of smaller impulse drives in the saucer and distributed the weapons more toward the engineering hull/battle section.

Anyone care to pick this apart? All other things being equal, it seems logical to me.

Logical to a Romulan or Cardassian maybe and even then the idea is stupid. First by wasting space for additional crew quarters that might as well be used to store additional weapons and second by giving the enemy an easy way to take hostages and/or undermine morale. If your whole family is onboard you're not going to take much risks. Increasing loyalty to the state by negatively affecting combat readiness in such a gross manner is a incredibly crappy idea, especially when there are so many warlike empires surrounding you which can be easily exploited as bogeymen to inspire loyalty.
.

Starfleet, according to Gene Roddenberry's vision, is primarily explorers and scientists, soldiers second. Given that Federation ships, regardless of size (prior to DS9), are built with science labs and other equipment. The Dominion War does quite a bit to introduce actual warships with little in the way of aesthetics, which is certainly a smart move. Spending time to throw in carpeting might make the difference between having an extra few ships or not, which can turn any number of battles.

So the Galaxy Class was built pretty much as a large survey/explorer vessel. It's built powerful like a battleship, but by including families, the crew has much higher morale since they won't be thinking of how far away their families are. They can then devote more time to working knowing that they can go home to visit their family and be there for them. It's a powerful motivator when considering whether you want to serve on a ship. Can your family come with you? Or do you have to wait six months or more to visit your family?

The Ambassador Class, to me, sits as the next generation of Excelsior. The biggest change between the Constitution class and Excelsior was that the Excelsior was that the Excelsior was built from the ground up as a more general vessel that could pull off several roles with little modification. However, after half a century, the Romulans and Klingons were starting to advance their own designs, so a heavier design was needed, so the Ambassador was built to push new technology that would keep the Federation current with their neighbors.

Baffalo wrote:So the Galaxy Class was built pretty much as a large survey/explorer vessel. It's built powerful like a battleship, but by including families, the crew has much higher morale since they won't be thinking of how far away their families are. They can then devote more time to working knowing that they can go home to visit their family and be there for them. It's a powerful motivator when considering whether you want to serve on a ship. Can your family come with you? Or do you have to wait six months or more to visit your family?

The problem, of course, is that Starfleet also planned for its survey/explorer vessel to also serve as its frontline warship. Allowing families on a science ship isn't that wacky an idea; allowing families on a battleship is incredibly foolish. In theory, the drive section was supposed to serve the military need, leaving the civilians safely behind in the saucer in the event of a military emergency, but in practice it never happened.

Metahive wrote:Logical to a Romulan or Cardassian maybe and even then the idea is stupid.

Not even for them: Romulans would be worried of placing the hostages too near the people to exploit, and no Cardassian, not even the Obsidian Order, would consider that for fear of his own accomplices attacking him (family's too important for them).

Baffalo wrote:So the Galaxy Class was built pretty much as a large survey/explorer vessel. It's built powerful like a battleship

In my opinion the Galaxy Class ships are not Battleships, have have a few weapons yes but are in no way made for warfare. I think a better analogy would be a Coast Guard ship. They are armed and armored but only to a point, much more useful in policing actions. When you consider the other jobs the Enterprise did this becomes more visible, and yet they still can fight in a war if they have to. Although this might be more a product of the tech limitations than design.

Millenniumfalsehood wrote:If I recall Trek design history correctly, the Ambassador class was the technological predecessor to the Galaxy class. If you look at the ship's saucer section, you will notice that it has no impulse drive, just a set of RCS quads that can steer the ship, but which can't produce any real acceleration.

Now, Mike Wong notes in the Database on the main site that there is a strong possibility that the Galaxy class was a social experiment in bringing crew families along as motivation to keep the crew loyal to the state.

What does this have to do with the Ambassador class? Well, when viewed in this light and if the theory is true, it almost seems as though the idea were thus: "If you fail in combat situations or in protecting the ship from danger, you threaten the lives of your family. Sure, you can separate the saucer, but you'll lose over half your firepower and combat effectiveness in the process, and if you fail, your family is doomed to be marooned in space in an FTL Drive-less sitting duck. So you better be good soldiers, or your families will be dog-meat."

I further theorize that later there was a bad reaction to the Ambassador class being designed in such an extreme manner, so when it came time to design the Galaxy class they placed a couple of smaller impulse drives in the saucer and distributed the weapons more toward the engineering hull/battle section.

Anyone care to pick this apart? All other things being equal, it seems logical to me.

Well, first, it's an intentionally perverse reading of the material, but if you want to play the "lol everyone in the Federation is actually totally evil" game then I guess it's your thread.


Who's reacting to that "extreme" design of the Ambassador? Civilians? Why? How do they know why it's designed that way? Put it this way: if the civilians know why it was built that way, why would they permit such a monstrous "hostage" program to continue? Alternately, if they don't have the political power to halt such a program, why would it matter if they got pissy about the way some starship is designed?

(Additionally, in the context of FTL, it doesn't really matter whether the saucer has a full fusion-exhaust impulse drive or just some thrusters and an internal fusion plant - they're still a sitting duck to any FTL-equipped starship. )

Is it Starfleet that doesn't like the allegedly "extreme" nature of the design? Didn't they design it? I suppose there could be orders from on high to incorporate such design elements, but again - if they didn't have the political power to oppose it initially, why and when did that change?

I don't see why the progression from Ambassador to Galaxy has to represent some sort of political motivation - why can't they have just decided it would be worth the resources to include more engines on the saucer and more phasers on the stardrive on this newer, bigger ship they were building? Similarly I don't see why the shortcomings of the Ambassador's configuration has to be the product of a sinister loyalty game when it could just be the product of design compromises, budget limitations, and bad assumptions - it's not like those things don't ever happen in today's military procurements.

It seems like just a lot of bad fanfiction - the evil Federation overlords twirling their mustaches as they devise new ways to send helpless children into the hungering maw of the Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians. If you really want to go this direction, I recommend abandoning all pretense, going balls-deep, and making your story a ripoff of homage to 1984 wherein the Federation leadership is actually secretly in bed with those of the Klingons and Romulans... "we have always been at peace with the Klingons" etc...



Also, take a look at the rear side of a Nebula class sometime, and tell me where the impulse exhaust is. Because one of the guys who worked on it (Rick Sternbach) says it doesn't have one. Work that one out.

If you really want to go this direction, I recommend abandoning all pretense, going balls-deep, and making your story a ripoff of homage to 1984 wherein the Federation leadership is actually secretly in bed with those of the Klingons and Romulans... "we have always been at peace with the Klingons" etc...

You man are a genius.

Has anyone ever made something like that?

Well, first, it's an intentionally perverse reading of the material, but if you want to play the "lol everyone in the Federation is actually totally evil" game then I guess it's your thread.


Who's reacting to that "extreme" design of the Ambassador? Civilians? Why? How do they know why it's designed that way? Put it this way: if the civilians know why it was built that way, why would they permit such a monstrous "hostage" program to continue? Alternately, if they don't have the political power to halt such a program, why would it matter if they got pissy about the way some starship is designed?

(Additionally, in the context of FTL, it doesn't really matter whether the saucer has a full fusion-exhaust impulse drive or just some thrusters and an internal fusion plant - they're still a sitting duck to any FTL-equipped starship. )

Is it Starfleet that doesn't like the allegedly "extreme" nature of the design? Didn't they design it? I suppose there could be orders from on high to incorporate such design elements, but again - if they didn't have the political power to oppose it initially, why and when did that change?

I don't see why the progression from Ambassador to Galaxy has to represent some sort of political motivation - why can't they have just decided it would be worth the resources to include more engines on the saucer and more phasers on the stardrive on this newer, bigger ship they were building? Similarly I don't see why the shortcomings of the Ambassador's configuration has to be the product of a sinister loyalty game when it could just be the product of design compromises, budget limitations, and bad assumptions - it's not like those things don't ever happen in today's military procurements.

It seems like just a lot of bad fanfiction - the evil Federation overlords twirling their mustaches as they devise new ways to send helpless children into the hungering maw of the Klingons and Romulans and Cardassians. If you really want to go this direction, I recommend abandoning all pretense, going balls-deep, and making your story a ripoff of homage to 1984 wherein the Federation leadership is actually secretly in bed with those of the Klingons and Romulans... "we have always been at peace with the Klingons" etc...

Well, it was more or less a thought experiment based on the idea postulated in the Database that the Galaxy class might have been a giant social experiment based on the fact that they built what is essentially a battleship with crew compartments for families, which would make them criminally irresponsible btw (imagine a Ticonderoga-class cruiser being outfitted with suites and the crew's families being forced to come along for the duration of every tour, then imagine the subsequent public reaction; I imagine heads would roll), and that the lack of impulse drive on what is essentially an ace in the hole for the crew's family for the Ambassador class fits that theory somewhat. I don't really know who would object to the design, just that in this theory there has to be a reason for the change in configuration. I believe someone would object (again, if this theory is true), and if enough people did, it would eventually be made known by other superpowers, which would undermine their delicate relations.

Of course, it may also be the fault of the incompetent engineers in Starfleet. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they made a blunder in their design that could potentially kill or otherwise endanger someone.

But in any case, I'd still like to play around with the idea that the Ambassador class was the predecessor 'experiment' to the Galaxy class 'experiment'. I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's an interesting possibility; they do have a past history of devaluing human life, and it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that they force crews to share the ship with their families, and that this was supposed to force them to be loyal to the ship and the Federation.

Also, take a look at the rear side of a Nebula class sometime, and tell me where the impulse exhaust is. Because one of the guys who worked on it (Rick Sternbach) says it doesn't have one. Work that one out.

Heh . . . now *that's* a subject I won't touch.

Millenniumfalsehood wrote: But in any case, I'd still like to play around with the idea that the Ambassador class was the predecessor 'experiment' to the Galaxy class 'experiment'.

Well, one piece of evidence against this fact is the Ambassador-Class, Enterprise-C showed no indication of having any civilians aboard.

Further, the Constitution-Class supported saucer separation for dire emergencies. It could likely have been the same for the Ambassador-Class. The Galaxy-Class is the only Federation ship where the saucer separation seems to have been conceived as a potential standard procedure.

they do have a past history of devaluing human life, and it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that they force crews to share the ship with their families, and that this was supposed to force them to be loyal to the ship and the Federation.

How does that "force" loyalty? Families aren't being forced to be aboard those ships. It's the choice of the crews and family. It may have been encouraged, yeah, but there's no indication of anyone being told "Well, if you want to serve aboard the Enterprise, your wife and baby girl must be aboard."

However, if your idea is to be followed, then how come, after Wolf 359, we see a sudden decline in mentions of families on Starships? You have the Defiant, built from the ground up for war. Voyager had no families aboard. The Captain of the Galaxy-Class USS Odyssey has the sense to off-load the on board civilians at DS9 before heading off to rescue Sisko from the Dominion. If they were evil-Orwellian masterminds, they'd have likely continued the practice until war broke out. Further, this is the exact opposite of your opinion of how the UFP feels about human life. When shit in space started to get nasty with the Borg threat, conflicts with the Maquis and the Dominion, the practice of keeping families aboard is discontinued, or at least, dramatically decreased. That shows valuing life if you correct a stupid policy that needlessly got people killed.

Sorry, I still chalk it up to the early TNG UFP being criminally naive. They believed they had tamed the final frontier to the point that you could bring your wife and kids aboard a starship. Wolf 359 proved them dead wrong.

Purple wrote:Has anyone ever made something like that?

Gandalf did something not quite that far at one point, well Stalinist not 1984ish.

Gandalf's Alternative Federation Fic

Skylon wrote:Sorry, I still chalk it up to the early TNG UFP being criminally naive. They believed they had tamed the final frontier to the point that you could bring your wife and kids aboard a starship. Wolf 359 proved them dead wrong.

You are correct in that Wolf 359 served as a wake-up call to the Federation, and proved that the days of peaceful exploration with no real military were over. However, it wasn't the end of putting families on starships. There are several events leading up to this, and I'll try to lay them out consecutively.

Stardate 42609.1, USS Yamato is lost with all hands when she suffers an anti-matter containment failure.
Stardate 44001.4, Battle at Wolf 359.
Stardate 47987.5, USS Odyssey is lost when the Jem'Hadar destroy her in the Gamma Quadrant. Non-essential personnel are offloaded on DS9 before she begins her mission.
Stardate 48650.1, USS Enterprise is lost. Most personnel survive, though injuries are suffered after the saucer section crashes on Veridian III.
Stardate 50929.4, Dominion War officially begins, prompting all non-essential personnel removed from USS Challenger, USS Galaxy and USS Venture

So we have the Federation clinging to the notion of having families aboard even after the Yamato is destroyed and the Battle of Wolf 359 occurs. I can understand the military being a bit slow to implement changes from time to time, but Jesus, that looks almost criminal.

EDIT: Removed a redundant statement.

Baffalo wrote:
You are correct in that Wolf 359 served as a wake-up call to the Federation, and proved that the days of peaceful exploration with no real military were over. However, it wasn't the end of putting families on starships. There are several events leading up to this, and I'll try to lay them out consecutively.

Never said it was. Just that as evidenced by the Defiant and Voyager, starting with Wolf 359, the Federation mindset began to change. TNG went on for its remaining four years with families on the Ent-D.

Stardate 50929.4, Dominion War officially begins, prompting all non-essential personnel removed from USS Challenger, USS Galaxy and USS Venture

Did you pick the right episode with this link? I don't recall it ever being stated explicitly "families are no longer on starships." I took it as just assumed as you have ships, like the Ent-E, with no families. Its more of something assumed by people based on what is seen on-screen.

lord martiya wrote:Not even for them: Romulans would be worried of placing the hostages too near the people to exploit, and no Cardassian, not even the Obsidian Order, would consider that for fear of his own accomplices attacking him (family's too important for them).

Well, what I meant was that they'd dwell on it 0.5 nanoseconds longer than a Federation guy before discarding it. I think Wong made the argument originally more to vex extreme Trekkies than out of serious consideration anyway.

Skylon wrote:Never said it was. Just that as evidenced by the Defiant and Voyager, starting with Wolf 359, the Federation mindset began to change. TNG went on for its remaining four years with families on the Ent-D.

Ah sorry I missed that. Yes, four years is about right to start getting real warships from the drawing board to being active in the fleet.

Skylon wrote:Did you pick the right episode with this link? I don't recall it ever being stated explicitly "families are no longer on starships." I took it as just assumed as you have ships, like the Ent-E, with no families. Its more of something assumed by people based on what is seen on-screen.

I just assumed that with the outbreak of war, all warships would go on full alert. All three ships are listed by Memory Alpha as being on the front lines of the War, so I can only assume they unloaded their civilian passengers. I hope, anyway.

Skylon wrote:Well, one piece of evidence against this fact is the Ambassador-Class, Enterprise-C showed no indication of having any civilians aboard.

Further, the Constitution-Class supported saucer separation for dire emergencies. It could likely have been the same for the Ambassador-Class. The Galaxy-Class is the only Federation ship where the saucer separation seems to have been conceived as a potential standard procedure.

Interesting. I need to rewatch "Yesterday's Enterprise" apparently, because I thought the Ambassador had families aboard.

I wasn't implying that they were able to reattach the saucer on Ambassadors. Only that they didn't equip it with any way of propelling itself in space in the event of the secondary hull being trashed. Even with an impulse drive, if it's built powerfully enough it could potentially approach a significant portion of c and get in range of nearby ships or colonies, so I don't see why the part of the ship intended to be a giant *lifeboat* hasn't got one. Warp drive I can understand being left out; in combat or other ship-threatening situations the warp drive is vulnerable to damage, but the impulse drive is hardly ever knocked out. They may not target it much, but aliens in Trek hardly ever target specific components to knock them out so that may not be the reason. In any case, every other starship (apart from the Nebula and a few post-TNG designs) has an impulse drive in the saucer. The Ambassador should have had one, because of the function of the saucer in an emergency.

Metahive wrote:I think Wong made the argument originally more to vex extreme Trekkies than out of serious consideration anyway.

That may be true; I have to admit, it's hard to resist the temptation to push hard-core Trekkies' buttons. If that's true and the Federation really does think they've tamed space enough to allow civilians aboard their front-line warships- oops, I mean "science ships", it means the Federation leadership is incredibly and indefensibly stupid and naive (though there hasn't been much in the way of dispute about this fact around here).

Buffalo wrote:I just assumed that with the outbreak of war, all warships would go on full alert. All three ships are listed by Memory Alpha as being on the front lines of the War, so I can only assume they unloaded their civilian passengers. I hope, anyway.

"Do not assume anything, Obi-Wan." They never have shown much consideration for the civilian populations aboard their ships before (witness how may times Picard and other starship commanders willingly sent a Galaxy-class ship into battle or other dangerous situations without first detaching the saucer section), and at the beginning of the war there wouldn't be any motivation yet to change their SOPs. And we all know how much Starfleet values it's procedures (Prime Directive, anyone?). Once the war got underway and the level of destruction was apparent, they might have changed that to off-loading the civilians. But I don't think they did that beforehand.

Apart from when the Odyssey actually did off load its passengers before going into battle. Since as far as I recall we only see these Galaxies in exterior shots we have no way of knowing if their were civilians on board or not but going 'hurr durr, there must be civvies 'cos the feddies are stupid and suck so much' is just as stupid assumption as saying they did, even more so really.

Crazedwraith wrote:Apart from when the Odyssey actually did off load its passengers before going into battle. Since as far as I recall we only see these Galaxies in exterior shots we have no way of knowing if their were civilians on board or not but going 'hurr durr, there must be civvies 'cos the feddies are stupid and suck so much' is just as stupid assumption as saying they did, even more so really.

If I were a captain of a Galaxy-class ship, and I had civilians aboard and knowing war was inevitable, I'd offload them for more reasons than simply getting them the hell off because they're civilians. Not only would that free up my crew from worrying about their family's safety, but also that frees up food, power, many of the other things that having a civilian population puts extra tax on. Leaving entire areas empty does seem like a waste, but if you then took those areas and filled them with supplies, a Galaxy could serve a fleet well as a supply tender as well as a warship function. An armored freighter almost. I'm not saying you can take on huge cargo, but moving smaller containers into unused family areas would certainly give you an edge.

Baffalo wrote:
I just assumed that with the outbreak of war, all warships would go on full alert. All three ships are listed by Memory Alpha as being on the front lines of the War, so I can only assume they unloaded their civilian passengers. I hope, anyway.

Oh, I assumed so too. I just thought your link was to a specific reference to those three ships. However, we have no explicit on screen evidence. Just a logical assumption based on what is presented on other ships.

Baffalo wrote: If I were a captain of a Galaxy-class ship, and I had civilians aboard and knowing war was inevitable, I'd offload them for more reasons than simply getting them the hell off because they're civilians. Not only would that free up my crew from worrying about their family's safety, but also that frees up food, power, many of the other things that having a civilian population puts extra tax on. Leaving entire areas empty does seem like a waste, but if you then took those areas and filled them with supplies, a Galaxy could serve a fleet well as a supply tender as well as a warship function. An armored freighter almost. I'm not saying you can take on huge cargo, but moving smaller containers into unused family areas would certainly give you an edge.

Granted, this was an alternate reality but in "Yesterday's Enterprise", Tasha Yar said the Ent-D was capable of transporting six thousand troops. The Ent-D's crew was over a thousand. All evidence suggests the Ent-D in that alternate reality was the same size, and of the same capability as the real one, but presumably with all luxuries and science labs removed (except cetacean ops for some odd reason, so maybe not all the science facilities). Just taking the hotel suite sized quarters, stripping them of the nice couches and stuff and cramming them with bunk beds would enable you to transport many passengers aboard a Galaxy-class.

Skylon wrote:Granted, this was an alternate reality but in "Yesterday's Enterprise", Tasha Yar said the Ent-D was capable of transporting six thousand troops. The Ent-D's crew was over a thousand. All evidence suggests the Ent-D in that alternate reality was the same size, and of the same capability as the real one, but presumably with all luxuries and science labs removed (except cetacean ops for some odd reason, so maybe not all the science facilities). Just taking the hotel suite sized quarters, stripping them of the nice couches and stuff and cramming them with bunk beds would enable you to transport many passengers aboard a Galaxy-class.

Come to think of it, I think this is the only reference to actual soldiers in Starfleet. I'm not counting the Earth Starfleet Marines, as those might have been disbanded, but the only troops a specific example was named of. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

On a related note to Skylon, I watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" last night, and according to the text commentary "cetacean ops" was apparently the idea they might have cetacean crewmembers like evolved dolphins on a water-filled deck. Seemed kinda silly though.

Also, the episode, while it doesn't specifically say the Ambassador had no families, it gives some pretty strong hints that way. Case in point, Captain Garret asks about her ship and her crew, not the families.

Given that this Picard is a veteran of a twenty-year losing war, and was shocked by Guinan saying the E-D should have families on it, he would have been very surprised if E-C had civvies on board.

Having civvies on board also probably would have affected his decision to return them. Far enough asking the Starfleet crew to sacrifice themselves, they knew the risks when they signed on, but I tihnk he might have been a lot more reluctant if families and children were also aboard.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:On a related note to Skylon, I watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" last night, and according to the text commentary "cetacean ops" was apparently the idea they might have cetacean crewmembers like evolved dolphins on a water-filled deck. Seemed kinda silly though.

Also, the episode, while it doesn't specifically say the Ambassador had no families, it gives some pretty strong hints that way. Case in point, Captain Garret asks about her ship and her crew, not the families.

Given that this Picard is a veteran of a twenty-year losing war, and was shocked by Guinan saying the E-D should have families on it, he would have been very surprised if E-C had civvies on board.

Having civvies on board also probably would have affected his decision to return them. Far enough asking the Starfleet crew to sacrifice themselves, they knew the risks when they signed on, but I tihnk he might have been a lot more reluctant if families and children were also aboard.

Paradox question then: If Picard had known there were civilians on the E-C, what would happen to them if he'd offered to evacuate them and only let the E-C's crew and officers return? Since the timeline was destroyed, but yet Tasha Yar went back and got captured by the Romulans, does that mean the E-D still exists from that timeline?

No it doesn't, because the E-D of that timeline was destroyed, holding off the Klingons long enough to let the E-C escape back to the past

EDIT; So even if Picard evac'ed the civvies to the E-D, they die anyway, BEFORE the timeline reverts to what it was

Eternal_Freedom wrote:No it doesn't, because the E-D of that timeline was destroyed, holding off the Klingons long enough to let the E-C escape back to the past

EDIT; So even if Picard evac'ed the civvies to the E-D, they die anyway, BEFORE the timeline reverts to what it was

You're right, I forgot that the Enterprise D was about to be destroyed. Sorry about the confusion.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:On a related note to Skylon, I watched "Yesterday's Enterprise" last night, and according to the text commentary "cetacean ops" was apparently the idea they might have cetacean crewmembers like evolved dolphins on a water-filled deck. Seemed kinda silly though.

The "cetacean ops" was on the alternate universe vessel. However, according to the (non-canon) TNGTM, there were dolphins aboard as navigational specialists. Presumably either uplifted (as you said) or an analogous sapient species nicknamed dolphins by humanity. According to dialog in "The Perfect Mate," Geordi showed some dolphins aboard the Ent-D to a visitor to the ship.