Excelsior is the best designed starship

[Captain Cyran]

I've always loved the Ambassador class ship, it just has that look of... I dunno, that "Yeah, fuck with me and you die." look. It just looks like a ship you don't want to mess with, like the Constitution refit does as well.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

TOS Era Constitution for me. I'm much more partial to those retro design aesthetics (I'll pass on virtually all post-TOS Movie Era ships in general), which is why I'm very happy reading the Starfleet Museum: all those TOS Era ships.

[Stormbringer]

And where did you learn all of this? The only time we get to see an Ambassador in action is when we get to see the badly damanged Enterprise-C. Not a real good contendor.

The post above yours refers to the Galaxy-class, and most often the Enterprise-D specifically. It's all things mentioned in Mike's Canon Database.

Ah. Well the Galaxy class is not so unstable as you would have us believe.

All of that is from canon incidents occuring aboard one ship. And given that the design stupidty lead directly to the loss of other members of the class as well as the Enterprise, I don't think I'm over stating it one bit. The Galaxy-class is quite simply a terrible design in that there are numerous problems that could and should have been forseen.

Only the first flight Galaxy had the problems you listed, and eventualy even the remainder from the first flight got upgraded to War GCS standards.

The "first flight" seem to comprise the majority of the class. And while the War retrofits seems more stable, I highly doubt that all the faults of the class were eliminated since they would require essentially a total rebuild of the class at the most basic of levels. That seems rather unlikely given wartime priorities and the desperate need for ships. And of course, there's also the simple fact that some of the flaws seem to have been repeated on subsequent ship class.

[Alyeska]

All of that is from canon incidents occuring aboard one ship. And given that the design stupidty lead directly to the loss of other members of the class as well as the Enterprise, I don't think I'm over stating it one bit. The Galaxy-class is quite simply a terrible design in that there are numerous problems that could and should have been forseen.

These demonstrated weaknesses have almost entirely been shown on the Enterprise only.

The "first flight" seem to comprise the majority of the class. And while the War retrofits seems more stable, I highly doubt that all the faults of the class were eliminated since they would require essentially a total rebuild of the class at the most basic of levels. That seems rather unlikely given wartime priorities and the desperate need for ships. And of course, there's also the simple fact that some of the flaws seem to have been repeated on subsequent ship class.

The First Flight does not represent the majority of the class unless you believe that Starfleet built 60+ of the ships right from the start.

The War Refits adress all the problems that are a major concern of the class. Warp core saftey. The USS Galaxy herself proves that the problem itself is not a ship wide problem, but rather an early problem. Generations also proves that the Enterprise was infact updated somewhat before she was destroyed. The Odessy took rather extensive damage over a period of several minutes durring battle and was only destroyed after being rammed by a Jem'Hadar ship. The ramming occured on the secondary hull at the deflector dish and near the torpedo launcher. This is not imediately indicative of a weak warp core. The Yamato incident was merely an example of central computer systems, a fleet wide proble, not a Galaxy specific problem.

I see no reason to assume the Galaxy class has massive warp core flaws, only the first flight at worst. Since then we have seen several examples of Galaxy class ships taking massive damage. Some Galaxy class ships were outright turned into burning hulks and their warp cores still didn't cook off.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I've always loved the Ambassador class ship, it just has that look of... I dunno, that "Yeah, fuck with me and you die." look. It just looks like a ship you don't want to mess with, like the Constitution refit does as well.

I too like the looks of the ambassador. It looks like what would be produced if a real engineer was forced to build a Galaxy Class starship: just galaxy enough so he wouldn't be fired, but functional enough for him to live with himself afterward.

But that does not make it an effective ship. If it were, we might have seen "War Ambassadors" blowing the shit out of Dominion forces. That would have rocked.

Of course, I still like the Nebula better. I'm just waiting for some Next-Gen Khan to take one over, and then I'll be happy.

[Kerneth]

Keep in mind that the Ambassador was built to be a warship.

It's entirely possible that, after things cooled off with the Klignons and Romulans, the Federation scrapped them all just because they felt having a dedicated warship gave the wrong impression to people.

[Alyeska]

Keep in mind that the Ambassador was built to be a warship.

It's entirely possible that, after things cooled off with the Klignons and Romulans, the Federation scrapped them all just because they felt having a dedicated warship gave the wrong impression to people.

Except that contradicted by what we see on screen. We have seen at least two Ambasador class ships from the middle of TNG and onward.

The Ambasador class most likely was not a warship because of the direction that Starfleet was going at the time.

[Stormbringer]

These demonstrated weaknesses have almost entirely been shown on the Enterprise only.

And we have zero evidence for correction to most of those in existing or subsequent members of the class.

The First Flight does not represent the majority of the class unless you believe that Starfleet built 60+ of the ships right from the start.

Proof that there are sixty plus Galaxy-class starships and that all or even a majority of them are of the 'war' upgrade?

The War Refits adress all the problems that are a major concern of the class. Warp core saftey. The USS Galaxy herself proves that the problem itself is not a ship wide problem, but rather an early problem. Generations also proves that the Enterprise was infact updated somewhat before she was destroyed. The Odessy took rather extensive damage over a period of several minutes durring battle and was only destroyed after being rammed by a Jem'Hadar ship. The ramming occured on the secondary hull at the deflector dish and near the torpedo launcher. This is not imediately indicative of a weak warp core. The Yamato incident was merely an example of central computer systems, a fleet wide proble, not a Galaxy specific problem.

So they finally fixed the warp core, somewhat, after they lost several of the ships. Good for them, however that has no bearing on whether or not everything else that's wrong with the design was corrected.

I see no reason to assume the Galaxy class has massive warp core flaws, only the first flight at worst. Since then we have seen several examples of Galaxy class ships taking massive damage. Some Galaxy class ships were outright turned into burning hulks and their warp cores still didn't cook off.

I can buy the notion that the war retrofits provided a somewhat more stable warp core since they don't have to power all the luxury liner shit that's tacked on. However there's no indication that any of the other problems were addressed, or even could be addressed on existing ships.

[Alyeska]

And we have zero evidence for correction to most of those in existing or subsequent members of the class.

We don't? The only real problem on the class was the warp core saftey issue. Every example of a Galaxy taking fire in the Dominion war shows far more damage absorbtion then the Enterprise did.

Proof that there are sixty plus Galaxy-class starships and that all or even a majority of them are of the 'war' upgrade?

In a single battle with just 600 ships we see 13 Galaxy class ships in a single fleet pan. Furthermore we have seen that the Galaxy has shown itself to be the core of the fleet and even under heavy fire it does not explode or take damage like the Enterprise did. Furthermore most Galaxy's shown have modifications the Enterprise never did. Armored spines, added phasers, enlarged shuttlebays, and use of all 3 impulse engines.

So they finally fixed the warp core, somewhat, after they lost several of the ships. Good for them, however that has no bearing on whether or not everything else that's wrong with the design was corrected.

There are effectively two things wrong with the original version of the class.

Warp Core
Jack of all Trades

One issue was fixed. The other is partialy being dealt with by Galaxy class ships being modified depending on their mission (hence the number of different War GCS variants).

I can buy the notion that the war retrofits provided a somewhat more stable warp core since they don't have to power all the luxury liner shit that's tacked on. However there's no indication that any of the other problems were addressed, or even could be addressed on existing ships.

On the contrary, the available evidence shows that the ships took significant upgrades. The Enterprise could suffer warp core damage through its shields and much hull impacts caused the warp core to get dangerously close to exploding. The USS Galaxy took massive hull damage to both its saucer and secondary hull yet it was still fighting (something the Enterprise couldn't do). We also know the ship survived and was repaired for later service. In another instance we see a burning hulk of a Galaxy class ship that sustained massive damage and that the warp core obviously hadn't detonated. These ships sustaine damage far in excess to what the Enterprise ever suffered and the cores never even flinched.

[Stormbringer]

We don't? The only real problem on the class was the warp core saftey issue. Every example of a Galaxy taking fire in the Dominion war shows far more damage absorbtion then the Enterprise did.

Actually, no. The Enterprise survived despite the shitty designs so the damage resistance isn't that much greater. You have to keep in mind that the incidents with Enterprise were not all fatal but that doesn't mean that the design isn't incredibly deficient.

And let's not forget, at least a fair amount of that improved resistance might just be good damage control, not improvements to the basic design itself.

In a single battle with just 600 ships we see 13 Galaxy class ships in a single fleet pan.

And that proves sixty plus ships how? For all we know, those could be the only 13 ships.

Furthermore we have seen that the Galaxy has shown itself to be the core of the fleet and even under heavy fire it does not explode or take damage like the Enterprise did. Furthermore most Galaxy's shown have modifications the Enterprise never did. Armored spines, added phasers, enlarged shuttlebays, and use of all 3 impulse engines.

Again, there is likely some improved resistance presumably as a result of the direct upgrades and better damage control training. That's not proof that the basic faults of the design have been corrected.

There are effectively two things wrong with the original version of the class.

Warp Core
Jack of all Trades

One issue was fixed. The other is partialy being dealt with by Galaxy class ships being modified depending on their mission (hence the number of different War GCS variants).

Actually if you look in the Design category of the Canon Database you'll see a long and extensive list of basic design failings. There is no evidence that these, many of which are as bad as the warp core problems, have been fixed.

And for that matter, we don't have that much direct evidence that the warp core's basic design has been fixed either.

On the contrary, the available evidence shows that the ships took significant upgrades.

And there's no evidence that anything but the warp core problems was fixed. The design changed in the war models aren't necessarily that kind of effective rebuilds that would be necessary to fix other proble,s.

And even then I'd say it's possible that the improvements in warp core safter was simply better damage control training being implemented.

The Enterprise could suffer warp core damage through its shields and much hull impacts caused the warp core to get dangerously close to exploding. The USS Galaxy took massive hull damage to both its saucer and secondary hull yet it was still fighting (something the Enterprise couldn't do).

Proof that it was an improved warp core? After all, despite numerous warp core near disasters it only actually cooked off once.

We also know the ship survived and was repaired for later service. In another instance we see a burning hulk of a Galaxy class ship that sustained massive damage and that the warp core obviously hadn't detonated.

Again, proof that it was an improved warp core? Because for all we know they could have simply have jettisoned it or had time to get the usually safety systems to work.

These ships sustaine damage far in excess to what the Enterprise ever suffered and the cores never even flinched.

Which, at best proves they fixed one problem out of dozens.

Or it might be that they simply got lucky a few times and damage control did their job or the safety system didn't tank out.

[Stark]

Without being rude, there's no point talking to Alyeska about preconceptions; he'll never change his mind about how he sees ST.

[Alyeska]

Without being rude, there's no point talking to Alyeska about preconceptions; he'll never change his mind about how he sees ST.

And what the hell is that supposed to me? I see that as an insult. My opinions about ST have changed significantly since I started the VS debates, but I still enjoy ST as a whole.

Now sit down and shut up.

[RedImperator]

Without being rude, there's no point talking to Alyeska about preconceptions; he'll never change his mind about how he sees ST.

What, exactly, does this contribute to the thread? If his points are wrong, demonstrate how. Otherwise, yes, shut up.