StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Lord Pounder wrote:Even though the BoP had a massive advantage handed to it? Actually 2 advantages, finding out how to negate the Enterprises Shields and fighting a ship commanded by Riker.

They didnt know they had those advantages prior to stating their inhibitions about taking on the E-D.

Worf also expressed scorn about the 80 year old warbird when first confronting it.

Ja Herr stravo, das is true.

Had my labrador retriever been commanding the E-D he could've defeated the Duras sisters :p

Stravo wrote:Alyeska, have we ever seen an Ambassador in any Trek episode other than Yesterday's Enterprise? I can't recall.

Plenty. It was a successful class, more were certainly built than
the Craptastic Galaxy, whihc had like six built, with a further six
spaceframes around the federation for times of war.

Remember there was a 20 year period between the Ambassador and
the Galaxy, plenty of time to build lots of them.

Alyeska, First Flight ships should have minor bugs, not catastrophic
bugs that cause loss of the ship and crew.

The Soviets never built any more ALFA class boats after the first few
total fuckjobs that were the Flight I ALFAs, and instead took the hull
shape and used it to build a much more conventional submarine, the
Akula.

Whats to say that those "War Galaxies" you keep harping about are
merely a totally different class that externally resembles the ill-starred
Galaxy class?

This kind of relates to the longevity of Excelsior class vessels. In one TNG episode Geordi's mother goes missing while commanding the Heracles. One of the ships the admeral said was searching was the Excelsior. Is this Sulu's old ship or a new one with the same name?

Erm if it's Sulu's ship I would lkie to know how the fuck they kept it in service after The undiscovered country, it was pretty well torn to shit in that battle....

Not really, the Excelsior suffered fairly minor damage. The E-A was the one that got ripped a new asshole

Drach wrote:Not really, the Excelsior suffered fairly minor damage. The E-A was the one that got ripped a new asshole

Indeed. While the torpedoes the BOP was firing were able to do quite significant damage through the shields of the E-A (though nothing compared to when the shields failed), the single torepdo we see hit Excelssor simply disipates on a shield and leaves no hull damage.

Opps I thought they were both torn up, and then did a dog pile after the ehaust seeking torp worked...

MKSheppard wrote:Plenty. It was a successful class, more were certainly built than
the Craptastic Galaxy, whihc had like six built, with a further six
spaceframes around the federation for times of war.

Shep, try and stay up with the debate. We've only seen three Ambassador class ships EVER. On the other hand we can count a clean dozen Galaxy class ships in a SINGLE fleet pan shot from Sacrafice Angels. Given the intended hull life of the ship and that we don't see ANY after mid run TNG (Emissary DS9 had a battle scene which takes place prior to mid run TNG) while we have seen litteraly dozens of Galaxies. The evidence is quite clear.

Remember there was a 20 year period between the Ambassador and
the Galaxy, plenty of time to build lots of them.

And yet only three have been seen.

Alyeska, First Flight ships should have minor bugs, not catastrophic
bugs that cause loss of the ship and crew.

Yes, but its not outside of the realm of possibility. At least the first flight only had 6 ships and of the 3 survivors we know one got upgraded to the War Galaxy mod.

The Soviets never built any more ALFA class boats after the first few
total fuckjobs that were the Flight I ALFAs, and instead took the hull
shape and used it to build a much more conventional submarine, the
Akula.

Lets see... Federation builds 6 hulls at once. These hulls prove bad, so Federation upgrades the design and then continues production. Remember shep, you have to scale things to a larger navy as well.

Whats to say that those "War Galaxies" you keep harping about are
merely a totally different class that externally resembles the ill-starred
Galaxy class?

Occams razor indicates otherwise.

Whats to say that those "War Galaxies" you keep harping about are
merely a totally different class that externally resembles the ill-starred
Galaxy class?

Don't they still refer to the "War-Galaxys" as Galaxy-class ships?

Alyeska wrote: And yet only three have been seen.

Have you considered the possibility that they've been relegated to
second line duty throughout the Federation? Hence we don't see
them as much? And besides, the Galaxy class took twenty years
to design and build literally, It's just stupid that the Feds would keep
building 50 year old spaceframes (Excelsior), instead of using the
relatively new and modern Ambassadors to keep fleet numbers up
as old ships rotate out during the two decade wait for the Galaxy,
unless of course, you think the Feds didn't build any ships at all
during that two decade timeframe.

Yes, but its not outside of the realm of possibility.

This would be like the US Navy continuing to build Nimitz class carriers
when half of them after just ten years in service had been lost due to
all kinds of easily preventable causes.

Even the russians said "fuck it" when they kept losing Alfas due to their
reactors literally SOLIDIFYING due to loss of shore power.

Occams razor indicates otherwise.

Explain the darker hull tone, and the thicker neck, along with
numerous other changes.

MKSheppard wrote:

Alyeska wrote: And yet only three have been seen.

Have you considered the possibility that they've been relegated to
second line duty throughout the Federation? Hence we don't see
them as much? And besides, the Galaxy class took twenty years
to design and build literally, It's just stupid that the Feds would keep
building 50 year old spaceframes (Excelsior), instead of using the
relatively new and modern Ambassadors to keep fleet numbers up
as old ships rotate out during the two decade wait for the Galaxy,
unless of course, you think the Feds didn't build any ships at all
during that two decade timeframe.

Then it is certain that we should have seen many more of them as part of the DS9 Dominion War Battle Fleets. A ship that is rarely seen when older and smaller vessels are still widely seen, which are better canidates for the role of rear line duty may indicate that after the Enterprise-C was lost so soon after its deployment they ran up the production of Excelsiors with the newer Technology from the Ambassador class ships and filled the gap with them. But since they continued to produce the Galaxy despite all of the obvious safety problems may be because of how long it took to design and build them. 20 years is allot of wasted R & D assets for a ship to not get used despite the flaws which seemed from the War Galaxy refits to be easily fixable. This may also explain the Nebula class which uses Galaxy Class components in its design.

Explain the darker hull tone, and the thicker neck, along with
numerous other changes.

Mainly only cosmetic changes compared to the Refit of the Constitution Class and they still called that by the same name.

What the fuck? Fix your quotes please

Just because the Lakota herself cost as much to upgrade as it does to produce a Defiant-class ship doesn't mean that later reconstructions would. In general the cost of a project goes down once full-scale production begins. The Lakota was a one-off prototype for such a possible reconstruction effort and it is natural that her reconstruction be quite expensive. The programme however might bring unit cost down a fair bit, making it cost-effective.

P.S. I see in the Galaxy/Nebula combination distant shades of the Kirov/Slava.

Chris OFarrell wrote:

Drach wrote:Not really, the Excelsior suffered fairly minor damage. The E-A was the one that got ripped a new asshole

Indeed. While the torpedoes the BOP was firing were able to do quite significant damage through the shields of the E-A (though nothing compared to when the shields failed), the single torepdo we see hit Excelssor simply disipates on a shield and leaves no hull damage.

Except for internal damage that required actually sealing off of sections.

MKSheppard wrote:Have you considered the possibility that they've been relegated to second line duty throughout the Federation? Hence we don't see them as much? And besides, the Galaxy class took twenty years
to design and build literally, It's just stupid that the Feds would keep
building 50 year old spaceframes (Excelsior), instead of using the
relatively new and modern Ambassadors to keep fleet numbers up
as old ships rotate out during the two decade wait for the Galaxy,
unless of course, you think the Feds didn't build any ships at all
during that two decade timeframe.

I guess you've not really paid attention to what I've been saying. Besides, your argument goes against itself. We should have seen Ambassadors much more frequently if what you say is true. Yet we have not. I have come up with reasonable expliantions on the issue. The Excelsior hull performed much better then anticipated and design problems prevented the Ambassador from reaching full production. Then the Galaxy design starts and the Ambassador is all but abandoned. This just so happens to fit with what we know about Trek. And we do know that Trek built ships in that twenty year time frame. The Chenyne and New Orleans are prime examples.

The problem for the Federation at this time is they have not been building ships like they should be. This would explain why the war with the Cardassians was not going well for the Federation. They were primarily relying on older designs (Excelsior and Miranda), had relatively few new and powerful designs (Ambassador), and some of the designs were short on hull life (Constellation, New Orleans, and Cheynye).

This would be like the US Navy continuing to build Nimitz class carrierswhen half of them after just ten years in service had been lost due to
all kinds of easily preventable causes.

Not hardly. The Galaxy class had problems. After the first flight build Starfleet apparently recognized this problem and fixed it. Your example is flawed because it does not account for the design upgrades.

Explain the darker hull tone, and the thicker neck, along with
numerous other changes.

Darker hull tone indicates armor. This is a relatively minor change, not a completely new design. There is no actual evidence beyond the armor that the neck itself is thicker. All other changes indicate an upgrade in the design and we know the older models recieved this as well. The USS Galaxy is a known member of the War Galaxy upgrade.

Alyeska wrote: Besides, your argument goes against itself. We should have seen Ambassadors much more frequently if what you say is true. Yet we have not. I have come up with reasonable expliantions on the issue. The Excelsior hull performed much better then anticipated and design problems prevented the Ambassador from reaching full production. Then the Galaxy design starts and the Ambassador is all but abandoned. This just so happens to fit with what we know about Trek. And we do know that Trek built ships in that twenty year time frame. The Chenyne and New Orleans are prime examples.

Then how do you explain us never seeing the Cheyenne AND New Orleans
at all except for Wolf 359 during the run of TNG? They're more scarce than
the Ambassadors, which we've seen more than once.

MKSheppard wrote:Then how do you explain us never seeing the Cheyenne AND New Orleans
at all except for Wolf 359 during the run of TNG? They're more scarce than
the Ambassadors, which we've seen more than once.

Thats relatively simple. They were short hull life ships. Some ships as designed have long hull lifes. The Miranda and Excelsior proved this. We have seen or heard of the New Orleans and Cheyne fairly frequently in early Trek. Their complete disapearance is explained in that these ships were simply retired because they could no longer hold out. Only the newest of these designs even made it into the TNG era.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359.htm

This article pretty much identifies the ships that were in service from the start and finish of the Ambassador line.

Wow



Galaxy Style Deflector dish - that puts it as a relatively new design in Trek, probably 5~ years before Galaxy for reasons I explain below.

The Cheyenne



The Warp Nacelles aren't Galaxy, but the bridge, and "neck" are virtually
the same, as are the general details of the saucer.

I'd say the Cheyenne was the first of the Galaxy Derivatives, probably
introduced a couple of years before teh Galaxy, to test out ships systems,
followed up by the New Orleans which gave a spaceflight test for the
Warp Drive system of the Galaxy.

Also, they while being testbeds for the Galaxy, also began the task of
replacing the older Constellations and Mirandas in frontline service,
relegating those older classes to cargo scut duty.

Ambassador is easily twice the total size of the New Orleans and
Cheyennes, and is significantly bigger than the Excelsior. The only
thing that was bigger than it was the Galaxy, 20 years later.

Your argument that they stopped building their BIGGEST most
powerful ship for 20 years, the Ambassador, doesn't fly worth
shit, because as you noted, they kept building a class with
severe problems 50% of the first run were lost to preventable
causes (Galaxy).

Hmm

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schem ... ships1.htm

USS Adelphi NCC-26849
USS Ambassador NCC-10521
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-C
USS Excalibur NCC-26517
USS Exeter NCC-26531
USS Gandhi NCC-26632
USS Horatio NCC-10532
USS Valdemar NCC-26198
USS Yamaguchi NCC-26510
USS Zhukov NCC-26136

That's a lot of Ambassadors.About half as long as the List of known
Excelsiors.

MKSheppard wrote:Galaxy Style Deflector dish - that puts it as a relatively new design in Trek, probably 5~ years before Galaxy for reasons I explain below.

The Cheyenne

The Warp Nacelles aren't Galaxy, but the bridge, and "neck" are virtually
the same, as are the general details of the saucer.

I'd say the Cheyenne was the first of the Galaxy Derivatives, probably
introduced a couple of years before teh Galaxy, to test out ships systems,
followed up by the New Orleans which gave a spaceflight test for the
Warp Drive system of the Galaxy.

Also, they while being testbeds for the Galaxy, also began the task of
replacing the older Constellations and Mirandas in frontline service,
relegating those older classes to cargo scut duty.

Just because they share similar designs does not mean they are built that close together. A prime example would be the Constellation class. All indications are that this ship was built MUCH later but still used older designs. While its probable the New Orleans and Cheyenne were predecessors to the Galaxy and Nebula, its reaching to assume they are so recent. While the ships share similarities, there are also critical differences. For starters there is the whole issue of scale. Their outward appeance is going to be more apparent then their interior. The interior because of size alone is going to be significantly different.

I should also point out there were a variety of Starfleet designs using both Galaxy and Ambassador elements.

Ambassador is easily twice the total size of the New Orleans and
Cheyennes, and is significantly bigger than the Excelsior. The only
thing that was bigger than it was the Galaxy, 20 years later.

Your argument that they stopped building their BIGGEST most
powerful ship for 20 years, the Ambassador, doesn't fly worth
shit, because as you noted, they kept building a class with
severe problems 50% of the first run were lost to preventable
causes (Galaxy).

I didn't say they stopped building it entirely, I said it had a troubled construction run and it was both slow and eventualy stopped sooner then it probably should have. Furthermore your continued harking on the Galaxy first flight issue is nothing more then a Red Herring. You have no clue as to whether or not Starlfeet continuned production before or AFTER the faults were identified and fixed. We already know that by the time of Generations the Enterprise herself had recieved some upgrades and she sustained more damage then typical. This indicates Starfleet was indeed aware of the problem and were attempting to fix it. Furthermore you ignore the fact that this 50% loss rate was over a seven-eight year period. They lost one Galaxy class in the first 2-3 years, then they lost two more at the 7-8 year mark. We already know that Starfleet was attempting to fix the design. Given the number of Galaxy class ships shown in service it becomes apparent that Starfleet identified the the flaws fairly early on the upgraded the design so that future ships of the class would be good. This explains why they had so many Galaxy's by late DS9 era.

MKSheppard wrote:Hmm

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schem ... ships1.htm

USS Adelphi NCC-26849
USS Ambassador NCC-10521
USS Enterprise NCC-1701-C
USS Excalibur NCC-26517
USS Exeter NCC-26531
USS Gandhi NCC-26632
USS Horatio NCC-10532
USS Valdemar NCC-26198
USS Yamaguchi NCC-26510
USS Zhukov NCC-26136

That's a lot of Ambassadors.About half as long as the List of known
Excelsiors.

I would like to know where this list comes from. Only three have EVER been shown on screen.

Alyeska wrote: I would like to know where this list comes from. Only three have EVER been shown on screen.

Came from Ex AStris Scientia