Topic: Star Trek ships  (Read 15900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Star Trek ships
« on: August 28, 2015, 06:46:30 am »
In TNG seasons 4 episode 17 the encounter a Miranda class. But inside the bridge is different from ST2. I was wondering if the ship was refit with TNG tech? Also the crew is only 37?

It seem so little unless it was transform into a science ship full of equipment a bit like the Soyuz? But I don't know, it seem weird that they refit the inside the control with TNG tech only?

Also the episode 16 with the space baby, Data says that they have never encounter anything like that, but in the episode  "Thin Man" they did encounter a space alien, it was kinda like a sentient organic ship. So the space baby even if its not a ship, they did encounter a space creature.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2940
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2015, 07:18:34 am »
They encountered several Miranda style ships in the series. They blew up the Lantree in season 2, it was being used as a supply ship, the Bozeman from the time loop episode and the Brattain from the Night Terrors episode. I'm probably missing one or two. It was a versatile hull that saw active service for well over a century and probably after that as auxiliary vessels. I'm sure they upgraded the systems occasionally and you only need essential crew on a ship that will be pretty much near a base all of the time or on a particular mission to study something. On a ship that may see a base only once every few months and has many functions, more redundant crew positions are needed, not to mention all of the departments and their crew.


As far as the space baby; they encountered two space-faring creatures in the pilot episode, so it was old news even when Tin Man showed up. They do that a lot.


! No longer available


« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 07:34:39 am by Corbomite »

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2015, 07:34:30 am »
If that ship in episode 17 is use for basic stuff, why fit it with TNG panel, control ? The bridge seem smaller that the Reliant and Bozman. Sure both ship are from TMP eras, but unless the refit a old ship with new tech why stop with the bridge? Well I don't know if anything else inside was change, but the outside still got old warp engine, and weapons like the torpedo pod.

Why use a old ship for what ever it was use for when you have better one?

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2940
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2015, 07:38:10 am »
Why use a old ship for what ever it was use for when you have better one?

They have better things to use the better ones for... like starship duty. Reconfiguring a ship's floor plan is nothing, especially when you have replicator tech. Look what they did to the Enterprise for its refit. The hallways were half the size, and a different shape.

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2015, 08:51:56 am »
Yea a old subway, if it still working, why change it? Well maybe because its OLD and because there are more peoples using it. In Montreal we still use a 49 ish years old trains/wagons. The more recent one are from 76 or 77 for the Olympic. The new one is in trial and will be available for the public in late December early January 2016. I know that Toronto have a similar one as New York and its old. And the have the new one that will be similar to the new one we will have. They told us to be "ready" for "problem" because its new. Well that mean you have not work the bug out of it.

But TNG is so 90's The sound, music , haircut, clothing of the civilian (doctor brown).

I know that they still use a few Excelsior class and maybe a few of enterprise C class (don't remember the name of it) see only the back of one once.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 11316
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2015, 08:53:32 am »
You update the control systems because the staff was trained for the current generation equipment not antiques. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 752
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2015, 10:24:58 am »
Actually, the reason CaptAdam uses is the "only" answer, and not bullsh*t at all - it's a TV show with a limited budget. Reuse the models, the sets, the costumes, the props - sometimes you dress them up to manke 'em newer, and sometimes the set or prop in question got beat up in storage so it has to be redone. Hell's bells, the movie 1701 had 4 different bridges, and the time difference between the one in STIV and STV is what, maybe 3 months, tops? The movies, even the JJ ones that had truckloads of $$, had to save money where they can.

It's totally fun to try to rationalize these details in a believable way, but, you have to always refer to that fact above.

There plenty of real world examples of "older frames with newer guts." I'm sure there's plenty of decent examples in the military. My own anecdote  - I have a '75 postal jeep that has a rebuilt trans from a 90's car, and new seats from a 2008 minivan. I bet i could even put some nice LCD displays in it to make it look "modern," but it's still a 40 year old car. Ooo, maybe I could put in a HUD! hee.


For the record Adam, the oldest trains in the NYC subway system are from 1964, and about 1/6 of the fleet was made between 1964-1978, and maybe 3/4 (or more) are from 1999 on. Here in Philly, one subway line's cars was replaced in the 80s, and the other '97-99. Trains aren't cheap to make (and there has been a sad trend in the last 35 years in this country to spend less on infrastructre in favor of corporate tax breaks), so they're expected to last 25 years or more. I'm not a huge train buff but I do like subways, both riding them and using them in model train setups. :)

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2015, 02:45:13 pm »
I would like to play with my model trains, but I don't have the space for that :(

beside the seem to need a engineer, one wont work, the other one seen to have problem.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 11316
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2015, 07:57:01 pm »
Actually, the reason CaptAdam uses is the "only" answer, and not bullsh*t at all - it's a TV show with a limited budget.

Of course it is the real reason but an in story justification is nice for the "suspension of disbelief". 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 11316
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2015, 08:06:00 pm »
I don't know about you guys but I'm glad they do still use the TMP generation ships. Nothing like them. Beautiful.
Remember, if I were an Admiral the Excelsior would be my Space Control Ship.

Though I might get crucified for saying this I preferred the Voyager to the D.  The D is just too big and overwhelming in power.  Voyager was also closer to an SFB design I made when a friend asked how I'd design a ship for a new series (pre TNG).  I never would have made a design as large as the D. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2015, 08:16:39 pm »
I never like the D, the saucer should have been round, the war engine should be equal shape, not "Skinner" at the tips, the ship look like it was crush, compress.

The Phoenix class also, its a Miranda class TNG version and a bad design.

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2015, 08:39:53 pm »
The Intrepid "Voyager" was faster that the big D, since it could go to warp 9.975. The big D was having trouble past warp 9.

It suppose to go far with out refueling but never got far because it have to return to a star base each time the hit a bump. Voyager manage on its own during 7 years and made more first contact that the big D did in the same time.

Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2015, 09:50:05 pm »
 :soap:   The big D idea of having the family for long exploring might be a good idea, but its kinda in the way. The bridge was too big for nothing, its a was of place. :cuss: 

:crazy2: :rant:




Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2940
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2015, 12:05:35 am »
I think the Ent E is the best looking of the bunch actually, but my favorite Starfleet design has to be the Prometheus. It's its own friggin' flotilla!



Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2082
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2015, 12:58:13 am »
If that ship in episode 17 is use for basic stuff, why fit it with TNG panel, control ? The bridge seem smaller that the Reliant and Bozman. Sure both ship are from TMP eras, but unless the refit a old ship with new tech why stop with the bridge? Well I don't know if anything else inside was change, but the outside still got old warp engine, and weapons like the torpedo pod.


Well, the tech manuals indicate that federation bridge are modular and can easily be swapped out.  The fact that they placed them in such a vulnerable position where everyone can take potshots at them indicates that there has to be some sort of benefit to justify that huge tradeoff.  Likewise, all of the major components which might negate keeping the ship in service such as the power plant and computers have also been shown to be modular.  Further, once the feds adapted touch screen control panels by the early 24th century, they no longer needed to rebuild the controls every time they made a major change.  They could just reprogram the display.  In addition, thanks to the transporters, components which would otherwise not be replaceable to to their location could just be beamed out.  Also, we don't know when they stopped building Miranda and Excelsior class starships.  Based on when the Ambassador class Enterprise C was in service, as well as the production run of the preceding Constitution class which stretched over 40 years I'd estimate the Excelsior building run to have gone to at sometime between the 2220s, and 2240s.  Likewise, Miranda class starships could theoretically have remained in production for longer periods of time due to the fact that they were not intended to fulfill missions that required the same amount of muscle as a Constitution or Excelsior class.

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2015, 08:54:43 am »
It was a huge ship. Big bridge fit the idea. Most stations were science stations.
Why have a huge ship and a small bridge

Plus it allowed a central location to shoot action scenes where most of the main characters would logically be...

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9433
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2015, 04:36:32 pm »

Additionally, the Galaxy Class Enterprise was also the main Space Control Ship for a various number of sectors it had visited during conflict times. When Capt. Jellico took over he converted the ships bridge science stations for a various number of tactical operational needs. That being said it was a SCS. And toward the end of its life they even added two more station port/starboard of the bridge.

I myself believe had the ship been designed during wartime it probably would have fighters aboard. They do have the room and facilities for such a refit. That extra bridge space can make it into an effect SCS/CV.

Only thing that pisses me off was the writes always taking down the starboard power couplings. Makes it almost sound as if the ship had an inherent flow with power management. Hopefully fixed with the new next generation Galaxy Classes.

With all that space in the saucer section, converting Galaxies the SCS makes total sense.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2015, 05:18:53 pm »
One thing I never like of the Galaxy class, when the encounter the Bozman and it hit the warp nacelle, it cause a warp breach and cause the ship destruction. And it was unable to eject the warp core (don't know if it could be ejected tough). In DS9 when the jemadar slam a ship on the side of the deflector ship it cause the ship to explode.

When I look at the Old enterprise (ST2) when Khan shoot at point blank at the Enterprise the intermix chamber 9warp core) the ship did not exploded, when the Enterprise shoot at the Reliant and destroyed the warp engine, the ship did not exploded.  So that kinda show that the Galaxy class was kinda fragile, week to any impact on it.


Offline Don Karnage

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2015, 05:41:26 pm »
Sure, but still its kinda hard to understand why the ship appear week. Well the warp core seem to be a bad idea compare to the intermix chamber that the 1701 got.

If its so unstable, the should fix it before fitting ship with it. Also the Equinox did get a warp engine damage and its warp core did not go critical, nor voyager after all the hit it got during the 7 years in the Delta quadrant.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 752
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek ships
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2015, 09:20:49 am »
Agree 100% with Adam that it's hard to create facts from the stories...

I highly recommend reading "Redshirts" by John Scalzi; a crew on a starship notice odd things happening and it seems they sometimes become a TV show. Sorta the inverse of "Galaxy Quest" but a bit more serious,  done with a caring hand and not mocking. Very appropriate for this topic ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Redshirts-A-Novel-Three-Codas/dp/1491514388