Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70

Thread: CODA - Federation Starships 2260s

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Burke
    Actually, according to "Peak Performance," the Hathaway was 80 years old. That would put its commissioning right around the time of TWOK, not TUC. And the Constellation would have to have been commissioned before that...

    That makes sense. You normally don't phase out a class of ships until the replacement class ship has been launched and tested (real world U.S.S. Enterprise-class carrier the exception). At least assuming that Starfleet actually retires the Constitution-class in the 2290s. Something generally believed, although there is on-screen evidence to the contrary.
    Last edited by tonyg; 06-19-2006 at 10:41 AM.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Burke
    Actually, according to "Peak Performance," the Hathaway was 80 years old. That would put its commissioning right around the time of TWOK, not TUC. And the Constellation would have to have been commissioned before that...
    Again, and this is a trip-up that Star Trek fans INSIST on doing, the '80 years' was not meant as a literal, exact time for the ship's launch, but just a reference to the '80 years' between the movie series (at that time, we're talking ST:TFF) and TNG.

    The Constellation is explictly listed on trial runs in TUC.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Again, and this is a trip-up that Star Trek fans INSIST on doing, the '80 years' was not meant as a literal, exact time for the ship's launch, but just a reference to the '80 years' between the movie series (at that time, we're talking ST:TFF) and TNG.

    The Constellation is explictly listed on trial runs in TUC.
    *shrug* maybe you could say it was on certification runs for upgraded equipment installed in it or something. Doesn't need to be a strict linear progression.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canyon, TX, USA, Sol III
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    The Constellation is explictly listed on trial runs in TUC.
    Where? Not wanting to get snarky or anything; I just like to know sources so I can check them out myself.
    Patrick Goodman -- Tilting at Windmills

    "I dare you to do better." -- Captain Christopher Pike

    Beyond the Final Frontier: CODA Star Trek RPG Support

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PGoodman13
    Where? Not wanting to get snarky or anything; I just like to know sources so I can check them out myself.
    Starship mission profile list in TUC. You'll have to ask Mike Okuda for where it is exactly, but it's clear on screen from what he says. I don't normally take the Okudagrams too seriously, but, this time, it makes more sense for the quad-engine Constellation to be one of the last 'refit-era' ship designs, rather than one of the first.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Again, and this is a trip-up that Star Trek fans INSIST on doing, the '80 years' was not meant as a literal, exact time for the ship's launch, but just a reference to the '80 years' between the movie series (at that time, we're talking ST:TFF) and TNG.
    Fans? No. Unless you count the ST Chronology and Encyclopedia as "fan publications".
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Starship mission profile list in TUC. You'll have to ask Mike Okuda for where it is exactly, but it's clear on screen from what he says.
    If you could provide a link to his comments or a screencap of the okudagram, I'll back off. Until then, I'll stick with my previously cited sources, which were by Mr. Okuda and his wife...

    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Starship mission profile list in TUC. You'll have to ask Mike Okuda for where it is exactly, but it's clear on screen from what he says. I don't normally take the Okudagrams too seriously, but, this time, it makes more sense for the quad-engine Constellation to be one of the last 'refit-era' ship designs, rather than one of the first.
    As opposed to the Oberth, or Excelsior... *cough*

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Huth
    As opposed to the Oberth, or Excelsior... *cough*
    You know better to get me started on the Oberth...

    As for the Excelsior, that's only slightly tougher. It's pretty clear that, unlike the Enterprise refit, the Excelsior class (AD 2285) didn't herald new ship designs and even new ships of the class for some years into her run. This can be somewhat explained by how easily the ship was sabotaged, and that she likely spent some time with 'cleaning up the design' of her systems.. this could also exlpain the 'Transwarp Failure' despite the entire warp system being recalibrated after her introduction.

    This would give a number of years for the Constellation to appear. Again, the only real problem is the Hathaway, with a fairly high registry (NCC-2593) for the period, and it's launch date of 2285, matching the Excelsior, and making her a TWOK/TSFS ship.

    The Constellation's (NX-1974) 2993 date is listed in the "Bridge Starship Mission Status Display" in TUC. As I said, this only makes the Hathaway a problem ship, since it's launched eight years prior to it's own class ship. Either the Okudagram in TUC is completely wrong, or we shouldn't take Geordi's "80 years" line to mean EXACTLY eighty years, and assume he rounded.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Either the Okudagram in TUC is completely wrong, or we shouldn't take Geordi's "80 years" line to mean EXACTLY eighty years, and assume he rounded.
    Even assuming he rounded, common usage would place the commissioning between 76 and 84 years prior to the episode, giving us a range of 2281 to 2289...

    And yes, I'm just being pedantic...
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  11. #26
    Anyway, the point is that information that can provide a simple, linear answer isn't there, so if you're going to be interpreting it you can either accept the oddness and take the words at face value, or simply choose a simpler explanation and stick with it.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Burke
    Even assuming he rounded, common usage would place the commissioning between 76 and 84 years prior to the episode, giving us a range of 2281 to 2289...

    And yes, I'm just being pedantic...
    Yes. Yes you are. :P

    For the Hathaway, she obviously (as is) needs to be placed a few years after TUC to make sense of it. (Geordi's line reflects early TNG thinking that TNG was TOS + 80 at all times, which has other dating issues, as we know). If the Constellation is new at 2293, then just make the Hathaway a new ship in the 2290s instead of the 2280s.

    On the other hand, the use of a quad-engined 'refit style' layout would only make sense if the Excelsior wasn't coming on line for some reason, or was seen as too expensive of a ship, etc... which would make the project START in TSFS, certainly, securing both dates as obviously wrong. (TFSF way too early, TUC too late).

    (And, just going over TUC again, I see where the display is, but it's not readable on screen. I'm actually leaning to 'both wrong', myself, which certainly wouldn't be a first...)

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    On the other hand, the use of a quad-engined 'refit style' layout would only make sense if the Excelsior wasn't coming on line for some reason, or was seen as too expensive of a ship, etc... which would make the project START in TSFS, certainly, securing both dates as obviously wrong. (TFSF way too early, TUC too late).
    Or the Constellation and the Excelsior were planned for different duties and were part of separate design projects from the start. If I were to speculate uselessly, I'd say the Constellations were intended for long-range exploration duties in the Alpha Quadrant, while the Excelsiors were meant to be heavy-weight patrol and diplomatic stuff.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Huth
    Or the Constellation and the Excelsior were planned for different duties and were part of separate design projects from the start. If I were to speculate uselessly, I'd say the Constellations were intended for long-range exploration duties in the Alpha Quadrant, while the Excelsiors were meant to be heavy-weight patrol and diplomatic stuff.
    Again, the problem is how the Connies, et al, were presented as 'old' and 'obsolete' as early as the 2280s. If this is really true, then why would Star Fleet want to keep around the designs not just for existing ship lines (Miranda, et al), but also for entirely NEW designs while the next generation of ships was already out?

    And, of course, that begs the question of 'if the Connies are hopelessly outdated, why are Mirandas, Sivas, and even OTHER CONNIES serving front line duties a century later?'

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canyon, TX, USA, Sol III
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    And, of course, that begs the question of 'if the Connies are hopelessly outdated, why are Mirandas, Sivas, and even OTHER CONNIES serving front line duties a century later?'
    Starfleet saw the error of their ways?
    Patrick Goodman -- Tilting at Windmills

    "I dare you to do better." -- Captain Christopher Pike

    Beyond the Final Frontier: CODA Star Trek RPG Support

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •