Constellation class

[Typhonis 1]

Why didn`t they use the Constellation class more in TNG and DS9?? I mean they had a model made up for it , it is younger than the Miranda class and should be easier to upgrade , but other than a few eps ((2 I know of)) nothing why is that??

[El Moose Monstero]

Maybe simple familiarity? Certainly they were trying to reach back out to the more warlike shooty-gunny's of the movie era, so it made sense to break out the ships that the movie era saw most of? Hence the bucket loads of Mirandas, excelsiors, Ktingas and Brel's we saw.

It could also have been aesthetic, the Constellation was a brick, and you certainly couldnt imagine it flying in formation or in wings like we saw with the Miranda or Excelsior, it just isnt a graceful ship.

[Patrick Degan]

Constellations were seen in "The Battle", "Elementary, Dear Data", "Peak Performance", and "Redemption (2)". They may have been seen in one or two of the fleet formations during the Dominion War, but I can't recall with certainty.

[Jason von Evil]

They were being decommissioned at the time. Plus, they're ugly as hell.

[Stofsk]

I thought they looked cool myself. I would think that they were more advanced than the Mirandas and Excelsiors, but apparently not - I can't recall seeing them in the Dominion war. A shame.

[Alyeska]

The Constellation class seems to have been a short run bassed on the technologies pioneered in the Miranda and Constitution class. Its likely the ship proved succesful durring its construction (which explains why so many were seen, for a time) but for some reason or another their construction was terminated before the Miranda and Excelsior classes finished their construction. This would explain an abundance of Miranda and Excelsior ships existing after the Constellation.

The one thing I would like to see is a pre TNG and Post TOS series so we could see more of those between series ships like the Constellation and Excelsior II.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I share Aya's sentiments concerning the Constellation-class. It's ugly as sin, and I wish that they'd gone with their original idea of using a refit Constitution-class for the Stargazer rather than make a new ship that's insultingly ugly...

[Jason von Evil]

From the side, it looks nice, but from the front or rear, fugly.

[Stormbringer]

Why didn`t they use the Constellation class more in TNG and DS9?? I mean they had a model made up for it , it is younger than the Miranda class and should be easier to upgrade , but other than a few eps ((2 I know of)) nothing why is that??

For the real word answer: it's a butt ugly ship.


For the in-universe answer: they were probably a dead end class. Unlike the Miranda-class which seem to be a general workhorse for Starfleet, the Constellation-class probably fell victim to the budget cuts. It certainly seems that Starfleet cut the budgets (particularly for old ships and new construction) and the Excelsior became the prefered ship regardless of it's relative merits or flaws compared to the Constellation.

With a limited production run they probably weren't worth upgrading like the Mirandas and Excelesiors and hence they got early retirement.

[MKSheppard]

With a limited production run they probably weren't worth upgrading like the Mirandas and Excelesiors and hence they got early retirement.

Uh, wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade these more powerful ships,
and retire some mirandas instead?

[Stormbringer]

With a limited production run they probably weren't worth upgrading like the Mirandas and Excelesiors and hence they got early retirement.

Uh, wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade these more powerful ships,
and retire some mirandas instead?

Not necessarily considering that the Mirandas (and probably the Excelsiors) make far better workhorses than the Constellations. Add in the fact that the Mirandas and Excelsiors are far more numerous and it's probably not worth it keeping the Constellations upgraded.

[Master of Ossus]

The Constellations are probably more expensive, too. They violate the standard "two-nacelle" system, and UFP starbases are probably designed to handle those kinds of designs, possibly even requiring special accomodations to maintain and build Constellations. More importantly, they use four warp nacelles instead of two, and have only slightly more internal volume. That increases expense without any real increase in performance.

[Patrick Degan]

The Constellations are probably more expensive, too. They violate the standard "two-nacelle" system, and UFP starbases are probably designed to handle those kinds of designs, possibly even requiring special accomodations to maintain and build Constellations. More importantly, they use four warp nacelles instead of two, and have only slightly more internal volume. That increases expense without any real increase in performance.

Why more expensive? Four nacelles allows the ship to balance out the energy expenditure of warp propulsion in a shared-load arrangement, and constitutes two matched-pairs of engine units —each of which will have a longer service life before replacement and would not consume any greater amount of fuel. The profile of a Constellation is no greater than any of the Federation's heavier starship classes, which are easily accomodated within their already existing spacedock facilities, and if anything a single hull is easier to construct and is more structurally sound than any two-hulled design.

[Master of Ossus]

The Constellations are probably more expensive, too. They violate the standard "two-nacelle" system, and UFP starbases are probably designed to handle those kinds of designs, possibly even requiring special accomodations to maintain and build Constellations. More importantly, they use four warp nacelles instead of two, and have only slightly more internal volume. That increases expense without any real increase in performance.

Why more expensive? Four nacelles allows the ship to balance out the energy expenditure of warp propulsion in a shared-load arrangement, and constitutes two matched-pairs of engine units —each of which will have a longer service life before replacement and would not consume any greater amount of fuel. The profile of a Constellation is no greater than any of the Federation's heavier starship classes, which are easily accomodated within their already existing spacedock facilities, and if anything a single hull is easier to construct and is more structurally sound than any two-hulled design.

I imagine that the second set of warp engines is more expensive than nothing, which is found on the Miranda. Usually when an engineer puts additional features on something, there isn't a huge benefit from it. I would imagine this is applicable to the warp-engines, as well. If we assume that energy usage in the warp engines is related to mass, then the Constellation class' additional engines actually take up fuel. If we assume that the reason is purely due to maintenance (ie. the ship would constantly be heading back to starbases in order to be repaired, otherwise), then it suggests an even more serious problem with the design specifications. Consider: since the four-nacelled design was not adopted by later classes, such as the Galaxy and the Sovereign, then SF's engines must be considered reliable enough to keep the ship going (particularly since the GCS was designed as an explorer). Thus, the Constellation's additional engines serve no additional functional purpose for the ship, make it more expensive (probably by quite a lot, particularly since it gives little additional functionality), and while the single-hulled design is probably a considerable advantage, the Miranda class is basically a single-hull without all the drawbacks of a second set of warp engines.

[Kitsune]

Not necessarily considering that the Mirandas (and probably the Excelsiors) make far better workhorses than the Constellations. Add in the fact that the Mirandas and Excelsiors are far more numerous and it's probably not worth it keeping the Constellations upgraded.

A good modern example might be that the US Navy decommissioned the Kidd class destroyers even though they are more capable and newer than Spruances and Perry class which were decommissioned later which some are still in commission.

[Patrick Degan]

The Constellations are probably more expensive, too. They violate the standard "two-nacelle" system, and UFP starbases are probably designed to handle those kinds of designs, possibly even requiring special accomodations to maintain and build Constellations. More importantly, they use four warp nacelles instead of two, and have only slightly more internal volume. That increases expense without any real increase in performance.

Why more expensive? Four nacelles allows the ship to balance out the energy expenditure of warp propulsion in a shared-load arrangement, and constitutes two matched-pairs of engine units —each of which will have a longer service life before replacement and would not consume any greater amount of fuel. The profile of a Constellation is no greater than any of the Federation's heavier starship classes, which are easily accomodated within their already existing spacedock facilities, and if anything a single hull is easier to construct and is more structurally sound than any two-hulled design.

I imagine that the second set of warp engines is more expensive than nothing, which is found on the Miranda. Usually when an engineer puts additional features on something, there isn't a huge benefit from it. I would imagine this is applicable to the warp-engines, as well. If we assume that energy usage in the warp engines is related to mass, then the Constellation class' additional engines actually take up fuel.

Your assumption would be in error. The bulk of the ship's mass is already in the main hull, and the engines need only put out enough power to propel the ship at a given velocity. The total energy requirement would be the same in a two-nacelle arrangement, but two engines would be under greater stress to do the same amount of work.

If we assume that the reason is purely due to maintenance (ie. the ship would constantly be heading back to starbases in order to be repaired, otherwise), then it suggests an even more serious problem with the design specifications. Consider: since the four-nacelled design was not adopted by later classes, such as the Galaxy and the Sovereign, then SF's engines must be considered reliable enough to keep the ship going (particularly since the GCS was designed as an explorer). Thus, the Constellation's additional engines serve no additional functional purpose for the ship, make it more expensive (probably by quite a lot, particularly since it gives little additional functionality), and while the single-hulled design is probably a considerable advantage, the Miranda class is basically a single-hull without all the drawbacks of a second set of warp engines.

Again, your assumption is in error. The Constellations were designed for long term deep space survey, on missions of decades duration. With each engine unit taking only half the propulsion load that they might otherwise undergo in a standard two-nacelle configuration, the warp units of a Constellation would have a proportionately longer service endurance between refittings or wholesale replacement —a premium requirement for a starship which could spend years out in deep space before seeing the inside of a repair dock. Also, comparisons with the Miranda class are not valid, since the Constellation is clearly a larger, heavier design and consequently has different propulsion requirements.

The more logical surmise is that the Ambassador, Galaxy, Nebula, and Soverign class starships —all considerably larger and heavier than a Constellation— were designs made possible by the development of a far more powerful warp reactor than what was available at the time the Constellations, Mirandas, and Excelsiors were being built, and therefore required no more than the standard two-nacelle configuration. The configuration for the Constellation was the best engineering solution for the mission requirements of that class of starship at that time and still represents a practical design.

[MKSheppard]

A good modern example might be that the US Navy decommissioned the Kidd class destroyers even though they are more capable and newer than Spruances and Perry class which were decommissioned later which some are still in commission.

All the Kidds were striken in 1998 and 1999, Along with the six
non VLS equipped Spruances, and roughly half the Perry class
has been decommisioned.

The Entire remaining VLS Spruance class will begin to decommission
in 2007.

The entire Virginia class of CGNs was decommed in 1994-97, the
Entire California class CGN was decommed, the lone ship of
the Truxtun CGN class decommed in 1995, the Bainbridge
CGN class of one ship was decommed in 1995, and the USS
Long Beach, our very first CGN was decommed in 1995.

See a pattern emerging here? Mass scrappings of non-VLS equipped
ships and anything with a reactor on it, because non-VLS ships are
limited, and can't be reconfigured for new roles rapidly, by simply
changing out the VLS loadout. The Reactors are going to be gone from
everything except CVNs and SSNs, since they're expensive to man.

Of course, the USN isn't as stupid as the Federation, all
this scrapping has been accompanied by a truly mammoth
Arleigh Burke program of SIXTY-TWO Ships.

This would be the equvalent of the Federation scrapping all their
god damn Mirandas and Excelsiors and using the money saved to
buy one fuckload of Nebulas and other advanced ships to replace
them.

[Crazedwraith]

This would be the equvalent of the Federation scrapping all their
god damn Mirandas and Excelsiors and using the money saved to
buy one fuckload of Nebulas and other advanced ships to replace
them.

But feds don't have money!

[MKSheppard]

But feds don't have money!

it costs deuterium and anti matter, as well as people to crew even the
shittiest ship in the federation inventory, the Mirandas...so why not
decommission them and use the saved goods to build lots of Novas
instead?

[Kitsune]

All the Kidds were striken in 1998 and 1999, Along with the six
non VLS equipped Spruances, and roughly half the Perry class
has been decommisioned.

It is not a perfect anology but it is a partial analogy. Remember we still have few non-vls equipped Tico class and a rail armed Tico is close match in many ways to a Kidd (Granted better radar and fire control). If they had built a large number of Kidds like was originally built, my suspicion is that they would remain in service like many of the Spruances and maybe reequipped with VLS. They might even last longer in service than the Sprunaces seem to be planned since they are decomming many of them.

[Isolder74]

But feds don't have money!

it costs deuterium and anti matter, as well as people to crew even the
shittiest ship in the federation inventory, the Mirandas...so why not
decommission them and use the saved goods to build lots of Novas
instead?

Well perhaps because since they don't use money there is no incentive to scrape ships for their materials to be recycled into other products. The Federation Scrap yard the ships did not appear to be in the process of being torn apart.

[MKSheppard]

If they had built a large number of Kidds like was originally built.

No they didn't Only four Kidds were built, they were modified
Spruance Class, and they were packed chock full of weapons, a
lot more heavily armed than a Spruance was, and they were
built for the Navy of Iran. After the Iranian revolution, the USN
took over the ships.

[Master of Ossus]

Your assumption would be in error. The bulk of the ship's mass is already in the main hull, and the engines need only put out enough power to propel the ship at a given velocity. The total energy requirement would be the same in a two-nacelle arrangement, but two engines would be under greater stress to do the same amount of work.

So? Are you suggesting that the Constellation class was purely a stop-gap measure designed in an effort to make up for exceptionally poor reliability in the warp nacelles? Moreover, even if the bulk of the mass is in the main hull, the engines still DO have mass. Thus, the overall efficiency of the system goes down.

If we assume that the reason is purely due to maintenance (ie. the ship would constantly be heading back to starbases in order to be repaired, otherwise), then it suggests an even more serious problem with the design specifications. Consider: since the four-nacelled design was not adopted by later classes, such as the Galaxy and the Sovereign, then SF's engines must be considered reliable enough to keep the ship going (particularly since the GCS was designed as an explorer). Thus, the Constellation's additional engines serve no additional functional purpose for the ship, make it more expensive (probably by quite a lot, particularly since it gives little additional functionality), and while the single-hulled design is probably a considerable advantage, the Miranda class is basically a single-hull without all the drawbacks of a second set of warp engines.

Again, your assumption is in error. The Constellations were designed for long term deep space survey, on missions of decades duration.

Constitution class vessels were taking missions of 5 year durations a hundred years prior. It's difficult to imagine that the reliability of warp nacelles is THAT crappy, particularly since no similar problems have been observed due to stress in earlier or later ships. The warp core is the thing that's constantly breaking down, and that wouldn't be helped any by the additional engines.

With each engine unit taking only half the propulsion load that they might otherwise undergo in a standard two-nacelle configuration, the warp units of a Constellation would have a proportionately longer service endurance between refittings or wholesale replacement —a premium requirement for a starship which could spend years out in deep space before seeing the inside of a repair dock. Also, comparisons with the Miranda class are not valid, since the Constellation is clearly a larger, heavier design and consequently has different propulsion requirements.

The Constellation's design was still a concession to poor warp-nacelle reliability even under the most generous examinations (ie. that the ship didn't completely suck, and just included the additional engines for the hell of it). Superior nacelle reliability would have rapidly made the entire class obsolete. Even if we assume that something in the Constellation's mission had to make it much heavier than the Miranda, we're still left with a design that is based around stop-gap principles, and one that would have become obsolete the instant reliable nacelles were developed.

The more logical surmise is that the Ambassador, Galaxy, Nebula, and Soverign class starships —all considerably larger and heavier than a Constellation— were designs made possible by the development of a far more powerful warp reactor than what was available at the time the Constellations, Mirandas, and Excelsiors were being built, and therefore required no more than the standard two-nacelle configuration. The configuration for the Constellation was the best engineering solution for the mission requirements of that class of starship at that time and still represents a practical design.

You're using double-think. If the Constellation's problem was that it couldn't use a more powerful reactor, then why were four nacelles used instead of a standard two? If anything, this indicates that the Constellation had a larger warp-drive than the earlier ships, and if the larger ships could withstand the alleged strain with a two-engine design, I can give little benefit of the doubt to the Constellation. It's design is clearly a stop-gap measure, and it should have been phased out as soon as more reliable warp-nacelles arrived, seeing as how the additional nacelles made the thing more expensive with HIGHLY minimal benefit.

[MKSheppard]

Well perhaps because since they don't use money there is no incentive to scrape ships for their materials to be recycled into other products.

I'm not talking about recycling. I'm talking about saving materiel
by decommissioning inefficient ships, and using the saved materiel
to build new build ships that are top of the line. it does cost a lot
of anti matter to run a starship, and antimatter isn't cheap, no
matter what kind of economy you have..

[MKSheppard]

And of course, you have to consider; does Starfleet have a set cap on
the number of personnel it can have in total by the Federation Senate/Council?

Decomming a lot of these old ships would free up personnel
for new construction.