you are wrong. It was commissioned in 2372. Same year as the episode takes place. It was a brand new subtype built for the war. But you can keep calling me a liar as much as you like.
I never called you a liar. I simply disagreed with you. I also am using Memory-Alpha and the actual episode to back me up. I never once said, "Zoot, you liar, you are wrong!" You could be right, but at the moment all the evidence is against you. Find some that backs up your claim.
The Enterprise D was the first of it's kind. Many more were made after that. By the time of All Good Things only around 35-40 years have passed since the Enterprise D was launched. I can't believe that the Excelsior could still be in service after 90 years and the Galaxy wouldn't be after only 40. If you have proof somewhere that the Galaxy isn't in service I'll gladly concede on that point.
The difference is that they were still making new Excelsiors whereas the Dominion War seemed to end production on Galaxy class ships as they proved ill-suited to the task.
The last Excelsior was commissioned prior to Wolf 359.
It's not that the ships were 90 years old. You'll note that the Constitution class ships were also decommissioned after roughly 40 years even with drastic refits and the Connies you see in game are clearly new ships with an old design, kinda like New Mustangs or New VW Bugs.
I never called you a liar. I simply disagreed with you. I also am using Memory-Alpha and the actual episode to back me up. I never once said, "Zoot, you liar, you are wrong!" You could be right, but at the moment all the evidence is against you. Find some that backs up your claim.
Using memory Alpha is as reliable as using Wikipedia to complete your PhD.
Memory Alpha is written by fans for fans.
No. The line is: "The Lakota won't be done with it's refit [...]". No mention of weapon systems until O'Brien's exclamation as the battle commences.
However, as a self-confessed Treknology geek, I have to ask: Which book gives the official commission date?
For a start the Lakota was built that year as a prototype subtype in the hope that all of the class could be refitted to Lakota standards for the upcoming war. It was it's battle with Defiant that convinced Starfleet to scrap that and go for a Defiant class instead.
The Lakota was commissioned in 2372 and was the only one of it's kind.
I can't tell you off-hand what the canon documentation for this is because I have hundreds of documents and I don't have time to search just now. Plenty of sites on the web cite that commission date but it's the web and you can make of that what you will.
I do know that I have canon documentation for its commission date because it's only about 4 months since I had this same argument on another site and quoted it then.
And as I said. It does not matter. I was arguing against the fact that the Lakota was an old class taken from out of service to be refitted. The Excelsior was still in service making it a current class. ( At the time of the Dominion war )
The difference is that they were still making new Excelsiors whereas the Dominion War seemed to end production on Galaxy class ships as they proved ill-suited to the task.
The last Excelsior was commissioned prior to Wolf 359.
It's not that the ships were 90 years old. You'll note that the Constitution class ships were also decommissioned after roughly 40 years even with drastic refits and the Connies you see in game are clearly new ships with an old design, kinda like New Mustangs or New VW Bugs.
That I could believe. They really got tore up in those fights. They were also supposed to house normal non Feds (families and whatnot) so they wouldn't be good in war. However, while they might not be making them anymore, refitting them would have to be cheaper and faster than making a new Sovereign-class ship. Also Riker's may have been the last if the ones that had been made were all destroyed by that point (and their production had been halted earlier).
It's Excelsior class Lakota subtype commissioned in 2372. If you have to believe otherwise then have at it.
It docked at DS9 in 2372 after having undergone a refit at Earth. That's canon. I seriously doubt it would have undergone a refit if it had just been commissioned prior to going to DS9 - and I won't even go into why it's carrying an old registry. So yeah, I choose to believe otherwise.
For a start the Lakota was built that year as a prototype subtype in the hope that all of the class could be refitted to Lakota standards for the upcoming war. It was it's battle with Defiant that convinced Starfleet to scrap that and go for a Defiant class instead.
The Lakota was commissioned in 2372 and was the only one of it's kind.
I can't tell you off-hand what the canon documentation for this is because I have hundreds of documents and I don't have time to search just now. Plenty of sites on the web cite that commission date but it's the web and you can make of that what you will.
I do know that I have canon documentation for its commission date because it's only about 4 months since I had this same argument on another site and quoted it then.
And as I said. It does not matter. I was arguing against the fact that the Lakota was an old class taken from out of service to be refitted. The Excelsior was still in service making it a current class. ( At the time of the Dominion war )
I'm sorry, but I have a not-insignificant amount of documentation myself, and I have not once come across something that gave me rise to the notion that the Lakota was anything but a drydock refit of an Excelsior-class starship. It would be something I would have taken note of.
The registration date alone disproves this, using the Defiant's & Voyager's registries as an indicator to launch dates.
He he my most acrive topic
Basically the 'Gene's laws' part is the bit about asymetric warp engiens, in that having 3 would rip the ship the part. Same thing as in Voyager with turning at warp breaking off half the ship.
I don't understand the reason for all the fuss. First there is too much of the word 'canon' being thrown around.
On-Screen does not mean 'canon' and it's widely accepted that future timelines and alternative timelines are a case of what may or may not be.
A ship from a future that may ( and likely would not ) happen that appeared in one episode is hardly definitive.
The Galaxy was superseded in the future. Why would they outfit an old ship in an era of a replacement for that ship. They would simple stick their nose gun and extra engine on a sovereign. As Gene was wont to do, if it's old and the new stuff supersedes and contradicts it then the old stuff is no longer canon.
The only problem we have here is the entitlement. All these people realising that it's something they have no chance of obtaining s would rather see it removed than anyone else have it. Either that or make it so accessible that it's just another thing that bulkers can buy and there will be literally 10's of them in the game ( as by the time we see them that will be the playerbase )
let it go. It's just a model.
I agree with you up to your last statement. If it was just a model then I wouldn't care either but it's going to have that cannon which is special to it. It evidently will be able to shoot through your teamate to hit you to and your buddy behind you (AOE cone of some kind). That goes beyond a model.
Now, if that cannon has the same effectiveness as stuff like the Red Matter converter then it's no big deal but I doubt it will be that gimped since this is a max level ship. I'm not screaming for it's removal or whatever at this stage because we just don't have details but if that gun is a monster, then yes, I will have issue with the Galaxy X.
1: Brand new ship even though from early in the timeline. Let's not forget, in JJTrek anything goes.
But it's still canon, and it's a single-nacelled ship. There's also a 3-nacelled ship (The Armstrong-type). There's also a 3-nacelled ship in TNG, the Niagara-class, which was seen in the Wolf 359 graveyard.
So despite Roddenberry's rules (Which I wish would be kept), the canon is going another direction.
2: Irrelevant: That's being able to run on 1 engine and has nothing to do with the design stipulation of an even number of nacelles ( which is what Gene said, he did not say "an even number of warp coils" )
3: irrelevant: see 2:
But it goes to show that Roddenberry's "MUST" isn't really a must. A ship can function on 1 nacelle.
Now, this may only be something that a smaller, "overpowered" ship may be able to achieve, as the Odyssey could NOT go to warp on one nacelle. It was stated in the episode that they needed the port nacelle back online before they could go to warp. So the "Run away on 1 nacelle" may be something only a ship of lower displacement can achieve, the "power to weight" ratio being enough to break the warp threshold.
4:: I disagree. 50% visible means across the beam of the ship. Or side on if you will. Prometheus clearly falls within this rule as it does on the forward facing view rule.
I'm pretty sure the nacelles are supposed to have 50% line-of-sight to eachother, too.
Ex Astris states:
Rule #2 Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
And
Rule #3 Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
So in this case, Prometheus does not meet rule #2, and neither does Defiant. Defiant has about 15% of the nacelle in line-of-sight with the other, but not 50%.
I agree with you up to your last statement. If it was just a model then I wouldn't care either but it's going to have that cannon which is special to it. It evidently will be able to shoot through your teamate to hit you to and your buddy behind you (AOE cone of some kind). That goes beyond a model.
Now, if that cannon has the same effectiveness as stuff like the Red Matter converter then it's no big deal but I doubt it will be that gimped since this is a max level ship. I'm not screaming for it's removal or whatever at this stage because we just don't have details but if that gun is a monster, then yes, I will have issue with the Galaxy X.
Until we know what the specifics are it seems somewhat pointless to get too worked up over what "might" be unbalanced, IMO.
I approve of this thread: the Galaxy X was an ugly, overpowered garbage scow. No wait, it shouldn't be hauling garbage. It should be hauled away AS garbage
But I saw in the other thread about this that they were thinking about giving it a cloaking device. Please don't do that. For the love of God, don't give this monstrosity a cloaking device. It's still a Federation ship, whether or not it should be hauled away as garbage
That Federation had cloaking devices because the Romulan's had been conquered by the Klingons, making the treaty that prevents them from using them null & void.
Fed's don't have cloaking in STO because the Romulan's are still kicking, but then again we probably shouldn't be getting the Galaxy-X as it likely wouldn't exist (especially the super phaser). I don't think continuity is something Cryptic cares too much about honestly.
I don't remember where, perhaps Ex Astris Scientia, but on some Star Trek technobabble website I saw a theory that goes a long way to explain this.
The theory states that, as the nacelles technology evolved, somewhere between the TOS Movie era and the TNG era, each Nacelle began having 2 warp coils inside them instead of 1 which explains why they suddenly became so much dramatically wider.
Also, keeping in mind some ships have been shown verifiably as having multiple nacelles, such as the Constellation Class/the Stargazer (which I will point out used the old TOS Movie era style nacelles, still playing into this theory) the more important thing is for the Nacelles to be in pairs, than for there to simply be A pair.
In which case, comparing it to the original TOS designs, it's more like this ship adds both a 5th and 6th nacelle, not a 3rd.
Please
It's one of those ships that never should have been... it doesn't work by Gene's laws and it just looked ugly, however epic it may be in a fight.
Discuss
Surprisingly, I agree. It was cheap and quick model making. The story was great. This was the conclusion of the most popular ST ever, and they went cheap on the models. They gave us a future Enterprise-D and then destroyed the original two years later.
Kind of liked it, but I'll take the Sovereign any day,
Hehe, I am more than willing to concede that I am incorrect. I however, will not take one fan-run, non-verifiable website to disprove another.
I also never claimed I was correct, nor that my information was valid. They've never really explained any of this officially in the shows - which, more than anything, should go to verify that 3 nacelles is not a problem.
I just think the explanation that Ex Astris Scientia put forth is just too perfect, too many potential variables just settling nicely into place.
Hehe, I am more than willing to concede that I am incorrect. I however, will not take one fan-run, non-verifiable website to disprove another.
I also never claimed I was correct, nor that my information was valid. They've never really explained any of this officially in the shows - which, more than anything, should go to verify that 3 nacelles is not a problem.
I just think the explanation that Ex Astris Scientia put forth is just too perfect, too many potential variables just settling nicely into place.
Heh, I am actually pretty well versed in warp theory. I'd never bothered to look it up on Wiki before, though. That's pretty awesome!
I just realized just how incredibly nerdy it is to say something like "I'm pretty well versed in Warp Theory" - what, do I think I'm living in the Star Trek universe or something?
Heh, I am actually pretty well versed in warp theory. I'd never bothered to look it up on Wiki before, though. That's pretty awesome!
I just realized just how incredibly nerdy it is to say something like "I'm pretty well versed in Warp Theory" - what, do I think I'm living in the Star Trek universe or something?
I know that Stephen Hawkings was working on the concept for a while, but I heard he was beat out by someone else.
Naw, just means your smarter than the average bear. (Yogi bear reference.)
Hehe, I am more than willing to concede that I am incorrect. I however, will not take one fan-run, non-verifiable website to disprove another.
I also never claimed I was correct, nor that my information was valid. They've never really explained any of this officially in the shows - which, more than anything, should go to verify that 3 nacelles is not a problem.
I just think the explanation that Ex Astris Scientia put forth is just too perfect, too many potential variables just settling nicely into place.
I didnt say it was a problem. I was just stating the number of coils per nacelle is 18.
If you watch the episodes that were listed on that page they tell you what episodes to watch.
Basically no manner how many nacelles you have the coils will come out an even number.
I am all for the new ship, I just dont agree with the way it is being distributed. Its currently like a leprechauns gold pot at the end of the rainbow as far as how hard it will be to get.
I didnt say it was a problem. I was just stating the number of coils per nacelle is 18.
If you watch the episodes that were listed on that page they tell you what episodes to watch.
Basically no manner how many nacelles you have the coils will come out an even number.
I am all for the new ship, I just dont agree with the way it is being distributed. Its currently like a leprechauns gold pot at the end of the rainbow as far as how hard it will be to get.
It does not alter the fact that when it was pointed out to the TNG team that a 3 nacelle ship was a design flaw the answer they hastily conducted was that each was a pair of warp coils making for a total of 6. ( and therefore being even and not odd which goes against the design philosophy ) That is the official studio line.
I also never claimed I was correct, nor that my information was valid. They've never really explained any of this officially in the shows - which, more than anything, should go to verify that 3 nacelles is not a problem.
I've seen very old plans for a Starfleet dreadnought with three nacelles. The ship was never used in the shows, but at least it was adapted into the Star Fleet Battles game.
It does not alter the fact that when it was pointed out to the TNG team that a 3 nacelle ship was a design flaw the answer they hastily conducted was that each was a pair of warp coils making for a total of 6. ( and therefore being even and not odd which goes against the design philosophy ) That is the official studio line.
I think the third one was cosmetic. Didn't do anything put light up. Starfleet realize the ship's center of gravity was in the saucer and put on the extra nacelle to balance things out. </joke>
I've seen very old plans for a Starfleet dreadnaught with three nacelles. The ship was never used in the shows, but at least it was adapted into the Star Fleet Battles game.
That was one of a number of ships designed for the RPG game by Franz Joseph and have been definitely declared non canon.
Comments
I never called you a liar. I simply disagreed with you. I also am using Memory-Alpha and the actual episode to back me up. I never once said, "Zoot, you liar, you are wrong!" You could be right, but at the moment all the evidence is against you. Find some that backs up your claim.
The difference is that they were still making new Excelsiors whereas the Dominion War seemed to end production on Galaxy class ships as they proved ill-suited to the task.
The last Excelsior was commissioned prior to Wolf 359.
It's not that the ships were 90 years old. You'll note that the Constitution class ships were also decommissioned after roughly 40 years even with drastic refits and the Connies you see in game are clearly new ships with an old design, kinda like New Mustangs or New VW Bugs.
Actuly if you look close enufe you would see that the saucer has two pop up nacelles one on top and one on the bottum so thare you have it.
O and plese put the Galexy X in!
Using memory Alpha is as reliable as using Wikipedia to complete your PhD.
Memory Alpha is written by fans for fans.
For a start the Lakota was built that year as a prototype subtype in the hope that all of the class could be refitted to Lakota standards for the upcoming war. It was it's battle with Defiant that convinced Starfleet to scrap that and go for a Defiant class instead.
The Lakota was commissioned in 2372 and was the only one of it's kind.
I can't tell you off-hand what the canon documentation for this is because I have hundreds of documents and I don't have time to search just now. Plenty of sites on the web cite that commission date but it's the web and you can make of that what you will.
I do know that I have canon documentation for its commission date because it's only about 4 months since I had this same argument on another site and quoted it then.
And as I said. It does not matter. I was arguing against the fact that the Lakota was an old class taken from out of service to be refitted. The Excelsior was still in service making it a current class. ( At the time of the Dominion war )
That I could believe. They really got tore up in those fights. They were also supposed to house normal non Feds (families and whatnot) so they wouldn't be good in war. However, while they might not be making them anymore, refitting them would have to be cheaper and faster than making a new Sovereign-class ship. Also Riker's may have been the last if the ones that had been made were all destroyed by that point (and their production had been halted earlier).
It's Excelsior class Lakota subtype commissioned in 2372. If you have to believe otherwise then have at it.
I'm sorry, but I have a not-insignificant amount of documentation myself, and I have not once come across something that gave me rise to the notion that the Lakota was anything but a drydock refit of an Excelsior-class starship. It would be something I would have taken note of.
The registration date alone disproves this, using the Defiant's & Voyager's registries as an indicator to launch dates.
But as you say, it does not matter.
EDIT: The only thing I found to support your argument was this site: http://www.lotr-rpg.net/index.php?id=373&type=1&MP=373-677
and this one: http://freeman1701t2.tripod.com/lak.htm (which specifically mentions 'Lakota subtype')
and finally this: http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagship.php?fedexcelsior
Basically the 'Gene's laws' part is the bit about asymetric warp engiens, in that having 3 would rip the ship the part. Same thing as in Voyager with turning at warp breaking off half the ship.
I agree with you up to your last statement. If it was just a model then I wouldn't care either but it's going to have that cannon which is special to it. It evidently will be able to shoot through your teamate to hit you to and your buddy behind you (AOE cone of some kind). That goes beyond a model.
Now, if that cannon has the same effectiveness as stuff like the Red Matter converter then it's no big deal but I doubt it will be that gimped since this is a max level ship. I'm not screaming for it's removal or whatever at this stage because we just don't have details but if that gun is a monster, then yes, I will have issue with the Galaxy X.
But it's still canon, and it's a single-nacelled ship. There's also a 3-nacelled ship (The Armstrong-type). There's also a 3-nacelled ship in TNG, the Niagara-class, which was seen in the Wolf 359 graveyard.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/niagara.htm
So despite Roddenberry's rules (Which I wish would be kept), the canon is going another direction.
But it goes to show that Roddenberry's "MUST" isn't really a must. A ship can function on 1 nacelle.
Now, this may only be something that a smaller, "overpowered" ship may be able to achieve, as the Odyssey could NOT go to warp on one nacelle. It was stated in the episode that they needed the port nacelle back online before they could go to warp. So the "Run away on 1 nacelle" may be something only a ship of lower displacement can achieve, the "power to weight" ratio being enough to break the warp threshold.
I'm pretty sure the nacelles are supposed to have 50% line-of-sight to eachother, too.
Ex Astris states:
And
So in this case, Prometheus does not meet rule #2, and neither does Defiant. Defiant has about 15% of the nacelle in line-of-sight with the other, but not 50%.
Now, if she was a new class, she would have gotten an NX classification, rather than an NCC.
She wouldn't have undergone a refit in the same year her keel was laid.
I see nothing in any canon or reliable source that gives her that commission date.
Perhaps it was a recommission date. So overhauled, she BECAME a new class.
But the extra item this ship has ... is more than likely going to handicap the ship more than help it.
A cannon ... on a cruiser.
Let them have that. It's not a particularly good thing for a cruiser.
I opened that box.
Well it was that hull design.
Fed's don't have cloaking in STO because the Romulan's are still kicking, but then again we probably shouldn't be getting the Galaxy-X as it likely wouldn't exist (especially the super phaser). I don't think continuity is something Cryptic cares too much about honestly.
That is wrong according to a little research.
You can read some of the theory's in the following link:
http://www.star-fleet.com/library/bookshelf/tm/www.html
Surprisingly, I agree. It was cheap and quick model making. The story was great. This was the conclusion of the most popular ST ever, and they went cheap on the models. They gave us a future Enterprise-D and then destroyed the original two years later.
Kind of liked it, but I'll take the Sovereign any day,
Hehe, I am more than willing to concede that I am incorrect. I however, will not take one fan-run, non-verifiable website to disprove another.
I also never claimed I was correct, nor that my information was valid. They've never really explained any of this officially in the shows - which, more than anything, should go to verify that 3 nacelles is not a problem.
I just think the explanation that Ex Astris Scientia put forth is just too perfect, too many potential variables just settling nicely into place.
Here is warp drive theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
(Used wiki cause it was convenient ) :cool:
Heh, I am actually pretty well versed in warp theory. I'd never bothered to look it up on Wiki before, though. That's pretty awesome!
I just realized just how incredibly nerdy it is to say something like "I'm pretty well versed in Warp Theory" - what, do I think I'm living in the Star Trek universe or something?
I know that Stephen Hawkings was working on the concept for a while, but I heard he was beat out by someone else.
Naw, just means your smarter than the average bear. (Yogi bear reference.)
I didnt say it was a problem. I was just stating the number of coils per nacelle is 18.
If you watch the episodes that were listed on that page they tell you what episodes to watch.
Basically no manner how many nacelles you have the coils will come out an even number.
I am all for the new ship, I just dont agree with the way it is being distributed. Its currently like a leprechauns gold pot at the end of the rainbow as far as how hard it will be to get.
It does not alter the fact that when it was pointed out to the TNG team that a 3 nacelle ship was a design flaw the answer they hastily conducted was that each was a pair of warp coils making for a total of 6. ( and therefore being even and not odd which goes against the design philosophy ) That is the official studio line.
I've seen very old plans for a Starfleet dreadnought with three nacelles. The ship was never used in the shows, but at least it was adapted into the Star Fleet Battles game.
I think the third one was cosmetic. Didn't do anything put light up. Starfleet realize the ship's center of gravity was in the saucer and put on the extra nacelle to balance things out. </joke>
That was one of a number of ships designed for the RPG game by Franz Joseph and have been definitely declared non canon.
http://twitpic.com/1lng06/full