Why was the Transwarp project abandoned??

Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Christopher L. Estep wrote:
>
>> Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes
>> were made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to
>> Enterprise (and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been
>> suspected as being a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all
>> hands).
>
> Not sure where you get all this from, but this at least is
> incorrect. Last we heard the Galaxy was alive and well;
> she was listed as one of the ships the E-E was going to
> meet up with in Nemesis as it left Romulan space.

Maybe he's confusing it with the USS Yamato, although the Enterprise
surviving the same computer virus had to do with the crew's understanding of
what was causing the malfunctions rather than some upgrades the Yamato
didn't have.

I also distinctly remember that Picard was worried in that very episode
(Contagion) that the malfunctions were do to an inherent design flaw in the
Galaxy class ships, which seems to suggest that the E-D was just a
run-of-the-mill Galaxy (or if it wasn't, it implies that the Yamato at least
had the same modifications), at least at that point. We do know that some
modifications were made later, as is shown in that episode where Geordie
meets the real Leah Brahms, and she comments on him "screwing up her engine
design".

As for the E-E, we really can't comment whether it's standard or not, since
I can't recall ever seeing another Sovereign class ship. In FC, LaForge does
say it's "the most advanced ship in the fleet", which sort of implies it's
more advanced than the USS Sovereign, that is, assuming such a namegiving
ship exists. I've seen the USS Sovereign in the game 'Bridge Commander', but
that's not canon. We do know that the Ent-E receives quite the weapons
upgrade somewhere between Insurrection and Nemesis.

All things considered, I think ship classes in Star Trek are reasonably
straight forward. There are usually namegiver ships (USS Excelsior, USS
Galaxy), and ships of the same class at least actually look the same. At
least Star Trek doesn't have Wing Commander-esque situations, where there
are two Concordia's, one is Concordia-class, the other (newer) ship is not,
and the only other Concordia-class we see (the TCS Intrepid in WC4) doesn't
look anything like it (then again, the WC movie TCS Tiger Claw looks
*nothing* like the WC1 TCS Tiger's Claw (note the missing 's in the movie
version) even though they're supposed to be the _same_ ship).

One other thing that struck me as odd though was that Scotty *really* didn't
like the USS Excelsior in ST3, but when they built the Excelsior-class
Ent-B, suddenly it's a "damned fine ship". ^_^

--
Unforgiven

"You can't rightfully be a scientist if you mind people thinking
you're a fool."
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

In alt.startrek.creative Unforgiven <jaapd3000.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
: One other thing that struck me as odd though was that Scotty *really* didn't
: like the USS Excelsior in ST3, but when they built the Excelsior-class
: Ent-B, suddenly it's a "damned fine ship". ^_^

No doubt, after Scotty's sabotage of the Excelsior, Starfleet put him in
charge of the class' design. The -B will have been built to Scott's
revised specs.


Paul Gadzikowski, scarfman.TakeThisOut@iglou.com since 1995
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman New cartoons most days

"Making a difference to only one person was never enough for you."
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Elvis Gump wrote:
> > Note that Excelsior was *not* scrapped (as we *all* know, Hikaru Sulu would
> > later become her CO); however, the transwarp design was never activated in
> > other ships of the class (or re-activated aboard Excelsior herself).
>
> Poor Sulu. It bad enough being passed over for Captain for so long, but then
> to have to drive the Federation's lemon.

Do you really think so? After all, in TOS he was (only) a Lieutenant.
He still had to work up through Lt. Commander and then Commander, which
can take time dependent upon the individual. After all, Chekov was a
Commander in TUC while Sulu was a Captain. It seems Starfleet promotes
people rather slowly unless they do something either very brave or very
stupid...

> It's a wonder he didn't get Rodney
> Dangerfield as his First Officer...
>
> > Research continues on other FTW transport methods (including wormhole
> > networks, *transporter ship* technologies, and Borg-type transwarp
> > conduit technologies), which is part of the reason why Kathryn Janeway
> > is chained to a desk (and is a flag officer) in Star Trek: Nemesis
> > (Janeway, like Picard, is a scientist of some note, though it *does*
> > seem odd that Janeway, who is actually younger than Picard, is now
> > Picard's boss).

....apparently like Janeway.

> I wanna know who Janeway had to blow to get that job.

In answer to that question, don't you remember:

http://www.firsttvdrama.com/endgame/index.php3

"And let's not forget that Seven is a virgin." (Well, she /was/...)

See, there's an answer for everything in Trek.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

in article 3FB1B694.DBA DeleteThis @mindspring.com, Snake at
fluidNOstateSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY DeleteThis @mindspring.com wrote on 11/11/03 10:25
PM:

> Elvis Gump wrote:
>>> Note that Excelsior was *not* scrapped (as we *all* know, Hikaru Sulu would
>>> later become her CO); however, the transwarp design was never activated in
>>> other ships of the class (or re-activated aboard Excelsior herself).
>>
>> Poor Sulu. It bad enough being passed over for Captain for so long, but then
>> to have to drive the Federation's lemon.
>
> Do you really think so? After all, in TOS he was (only) a Lieutenant.
> He still had to work up through Lt. Commander and then Commander, which
> can take time dependent upon the individual. After all, Chekov was a
> Commander in TUC while Sulu was a Captain. It seems Starfleet promotes
> people rather slowly unless they do something either very brave or very
> stupid...

Oh it was infinitely stupid to keep either the TOS or TNG cast so inviolate
for so long. Look say at a show like ER or Law and Order that prove you can
completely change the cast. Hell that's they way real life works.

>> It's a wonder he didn't get Rodney Dangerfield as his First Officer...

>>> Research continues on other FTW transport methods (including wormhole
>>> networks, *transporter ship* technologies, and Borg-type transwarp
>>> conduit technologies), which is part of the reason why Kathryn Janeway
>>> is chained to a desk (and is a flag officer) in Star Trek: Nemesis
>>> (Janeway, like Picard, is a scientist of some note, though it *does*
>>> seem odd that Janeway, who is actually younger than Picard, is now
>>> Picard's boss).
>
> ...apparently like Janeway.
>
>> I wanna know who Janeway had to blow to get that job.
>
> In answer to that question, don't you remember:
>
> http://www.firsttvdrama.com/endgame/index.php3
>
> "And let's not forget that Seven is a virgin." (Well, she /was/...)
>
> See, there's an answer for everything in Trek.

I never saw Voyager, only bits of an episode here or there because it was
never syndicated in my area.

I have to say I had a deep aversion to the actress who played Janeway if not
for the dreck of "Mrs. Columbo" then for her infinitely annoying voice. She
used to do commercials for South Central Bell in the 1980's and I can still
hear that screech like voice going "Call on us!"

Were they so hard up for money at Paramount that harpy was all they could
afford? If they wanted a woman captain I think they should have offered it
to some of the infinitely better actresses that have blazed the territory
before her like the one that played Cap'n Garrett or even that black lady
that played the one seen briefly in the beginning of ST:TVH.

IMHO they could have done a lot better. But then they had a Genevieve
whatshername (I can't spell it) that bailed on them before the show aired so
it's indicative of TPTB.
--
"Many a man in love with a dimple makes the mistake of marrying the whole
girl."
-- Stephen Leacock
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Unforgiven wrote:

> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Christopher L. Estep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes
>>>were made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to
>>>Enterprise (and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been
>>>suspected as being a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all
>>>hands).
>>
>>Not sure where you get all this from, but this at least is
>>incorrect. Last we heard the Galaxy was alive and well;
>>she was listed as one of the ships the E-E was going to
>>meet up with in Nemesis as it left Romulan space.
>
>
> Maybe he's confusing it with the USS Yamato, although the Enterprise
> surviving the same computer virus had to do with the crew's understanding of
> what was causing the malfunctions rather than some upgrades the Yamato
> didn't have.
>
> I also distinctly remember that Picard was worried in that very episode
> (Contagion) that the malfunctions were do to an inherent design flaw in the
> Galaxy class ships, which seems to suggest that the E-D was just a
> run-of-the-mill Galaxy (or if it wasn't, it implies that the Yamato at least
> had the same modifications), at least at that point. We do know that some
> modifications were made later, as is shown in that episode where Geordie
> meets the real Leah Brahms, and she comments on him "screwing up her engine
> design".
>
> As for the E-E, we really can't comment whether it's standard or not, since
> I can't recall ever seeing another Sovereign class ship. In FC, LaForge does
> say it's "the most advanced ship in the fleet", which sort of implies it's
> more advanced than the USS Sovereign, that is, assuming such a namegiving
> ship exists. I've seen the USS Sovereign in the game 'Bridge Commander', but
> that's not canon. We do know that the Ent-E receives quite the weapons
> upgrade somewhere between Insurrection and Nemesis.
>
> All things considered, I think ship classes in Star Trek are reasonably
> straight forward. There are usually namegiver ships (USS Excelsior, USS
> Galaxy), and ships of the same class at least actually look the same. At
> least Star Trek doesn't have Wing Commander-esque situations, where there
> are two Concordia's, one is Concordia-class, the other (newer) ship is not,
> and the only other Concordia-class we see (the TCS Intrepid in WC4) doesn't
> look anything like it (then again, the WC movie TCS Tiger Claw looks
> *nothing* like the WC1 TCS Tiger's Claw (note the missing 's in the movie
> version) even though they're supposed to be the _same_ ship).

My impression is that all the ships in a class vary slightly
from one to the other because Starfleet chief engineers seem
to love to tinker, getting their ships just as good as they
can make them. So Geordi might well claim that his ship is
best because he manages to push the engine efficiency up to
99.53% instead of the 99.52% in the specs, and because he's
just installed LCARS 8.55 while the rest of the fleet only
has version 8.54 or something.

In fact there's an ep where we see exactly this, Geordi gets
a message from another engineer needling him about how high
they got the engine efficiency, and works on his own setup
until he beats them.

As for the Sovereign, there's a clear view of the bridge
schematic in First Contact and it has "Sovereign Class" above
it; so the USS Sovereign must exist.

> One other thing that struck me as odd though was that Scotty *really* didn't
> like the USS Excelsior in ST3, but when they built the Excelsior-class
> Ent-B, suddenly it's a "damned fine ship". ^_^

Ah, but you see Kirk helped on that modifications for that one.
At least, it's implied that he did - it's one of the questions
a reporter yells at him as he arrives. Maybe Scotty was just
trying to be polite.

--
Graham Kennedy

Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Graham Kennedy wrote:
> My impression is that all the ships in a class vary slightly
> from one to the other because Starfleet chief engineers seem
> to love to tinker, getting their ships just as good as they
> can make them. So Geordi might well claim that his ship is
> best because he manages to push the engine efficiency up to
> 99.53% instead of the 99.52% in the specs, and because he's
> just installed LCARS 8.55 while the rest of the fleet only
> has version 8.54 or something.

Still, having better engine efficiency doesn't make a ship more advanced. It
might make it better, not more advanced. In case of the software upgrade, it
might be true, but *everyone* knows LCARS 8.55 is full of bugs! ^_^ (sorry,
couldn't resist)

> In fact there's an ep where we see exactly this, Geordi gets
> a message from another engineer needling him about how high
> they got the engine efficiency, and works on his own setup
> until he beats them.

I remember that.

> As for the Sovereign, there's a clear view of the bridge
> schematic in First Contact and it has "Sovereign Class" above
> it; so the USS Sovereign must exist.

That is assuming every ship class has a ship that actually has the class
name. Given the precedent it's a logical assumption to make, but has it ever
been canonically established that such a ship *must* exist?

>> One other thing that struck me as odd though was that Scotty
>> *really* didn't like the USS Excelsior in ST3, but when they built
>> the Excelsior-class Ent-B, suddenly it's a "damned fine ship". ^_^
>
> Ah, but you see Kirk helped on that modifications for that one.
> At least, it's implied that he did - it's one of the questions
> a reporter yells at him as he arrives. Maybe Scotty was just
> trying to be polite.

Hmm, I'll have to listen more closely next time I watch that movie. And for
the record, I like the Excelsior design.

--
Unforgiven

"You can't rightfully be a scientist if you mind people thinking
you're a fool."
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

> > As for the Sovereign, there's a clear view of the bridge
> > schematic in First Contact and it has "Sovereign Class" above
> > it; so the USS Sovereign must exist.
>
> That is assuming every ship class has a ship that actually has the class
> name. Given the precedent it's a logical assumption to make, but has it
ever
> been canonically established that such a ship *must* exist?

well I don't know about "canon" but it was established by a 'studio'/creator
authorised publication.
Back in the 1970s Gene R, and the people who held the licence for Trek at
that time (perhaps him and his wife, possibly others) published the original
star-trek tech manual.
It listed ships and such things and _was_ considered cannon at one time (now
I don't know, several things have contradicted it lately)
the model for "class" ships (ships that would give their name to all other
ships of the same design) was based (loosely) on the US Navy protocols.
(heavy cruisers replacing aircraft carriers as "being named for battles")

in real world terms the (WW II) Carrier USS Enterprise , was if memory
serves an Essex Class ship. There was an USS Essex, however its fate is
unknown to me.
Generally (according to the standard write up) the "class ship" was
assigned to the Academy as a training vessel. (that is why , after the
refit, the Enterprise (NCC 1701.) had cadets aboard.)(it was the first of
the "redesigned" Constitution class, which was to be known as "enterprise
class" afterwards.

we saw the same thing (the changing of class name) with the Reliant. In
ST:WoK that was one class, but in Next Gen it had been changed to the
'Miranda' Class (due to the design being changed.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Chris Harrison wrote:

>
> in real world terms the (WW II) Carrier USS Enterprise , was if memory
> serves an Essex Class ship. There was an USS Essex, however its fate is
> unknown to me.

Actually, the first aircraft carrier Enterprise was CV-6, of the
Yorktown class. That class consisted of Yorktown (CV-5), Enterprise, and
Hornet (CV-. Enterprise was the only one of the three to survive the
war. She was scrapped in 1958.

Essex was CV-9, and served honorably from 1942 until stricken in 1973
and scrapped in 1975. BTW, not a single Essex was lost during World War
II, but Franklin (CV-13) was severely damaged by a kamikaze attack and
nearly lost.

The current Enterprise is CVN-65, and was the first nuclear-powered
carrier in the world. She is the sole Enterprise-class carrier
commissioned in 1961, and is currently slated for retirement in, I think
, 2014.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

Chris Harrison wrote:
> well I don't know about "canon" but it was established by a
> 'studio'/creator authorised publication.
> Back in the 1970s Gene R, and the people who held the licence for
> Trek at that time (perhaps him and his wife, possibly others)
> published the original star-trek tech manual.
> It listed ships and such things and _was_ considered cannon at one
> time (now I don't know, several things have contradicted it lately)
> the model for "class" ships (ships that would give their name to all
> other ships of the same design) was based (loosely) on the US Navy
> protocols. (heavy cruisers replacing aircraft carriers as "being
> named for battles")

Yet I've heard Archer refer to his Enterprise as an NX-class starship... but
we might say the rule wasn't established yet back then.

I wonder, would all 'class-prototypes' be NX ships originally, at least
until they enter active service? We've seen a number of class-prototypes
with NCC numbers, but since the Excelsior became NCC-2000 after entering
active service, being NX-2000 before, it's at least conceivable that other
ships received similar treatment. Or was the Excelsior only an NX ship
because it had a (experimental) transwarp drive?

--
Unforgiven

"You can't rightfully be a scientist if you mind people thinking
you're a fool."
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

> I wonder, would all 'class-prototypes' be NX ships originally, at least
> until they enter active service? We've seen a number of class-prototypes
> with NCC numbers, but since the Excelsior became NCC-2000 after
> entering active service, being NX-2000 before, it's at least conceivable
that
> her ships received similar treatment. Or was the Excelsior only an NX ship
> because it had a (experimental) transwarp drive?

Well , I can only respond to this inquiry with the following data.

N.C.C.: is a contraction of a set of words :Naval Construction Contract.
As I understand it, all Navy ships in the USA have a number like this, and
Gene R decided that this number would be prominent in the Federation ships.
That is why the "USS Constitution" (the Class ship, in TOS) had the lowest
number of those ships (NCC 1700) as it was 'built first' (or was supposed to
be)

As for N.X.: if this follows the same or similar nomenclature then it would
represent "Naval Experimental" (Just like the Bell X-1 was actually the Bell
Experimental#1)

don't know what "Naval" would/should become when speaking of Space ships
(unless they are classed as space Navy that is) \
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

In article <vr9kkbenhojjee.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>, Chris Harrison
<karis.TakeThisOut@idirect.com> wrote:

> > I wonder, would all 'class-prototypes' be NX ships originally, at least
> > until they enter active service? We've seen a number of class-prototypes
> > with NCC numbers, but since the Excelsior became NCC-2000 after
> > entering active service, being NX-2000 before, it's at least conceivable
> that
> > her ships received similar treatment. Or was the Excelsior only an NX ship
> > because it had a (experimental) transwarp drive?
>
> Well , I can only respond to this inquiry with the following data.
>
> N.C.C.: is a contraction of a set of words :Naval Construction Contract.
> As I understand it, all Navy ships in the USA have a number like this, and
> Gene R decided that this number would be prominent in the Federation ships.
> That is why the "USS Constitution" (the Class ship, in TOS) had the lowest
> number of those ships (NCC 1700) as it was 'built first' (or was supposed to
> be)
>
> As for N.X.: if this follows the same or similar nomenclature then it would
> represent "Naval Experimental" (Just like the Bell X-1 was actually the Bell
> Experimental#1)

Yes. The X is clearly meant to denote "experimental." There could
even be an NX-2, NX-3, etc., but these later ships would probably
represent a significant upgrade from NX-1, which has itself already
been signficantly upgraded.

The USA ran a series of experimental airplanes that began with the X-1
(which you mention) and continued through the X-15, the first manned
vehicle to reach space. The X-15 was very famous, back in the day.
X-15 pilots routinely won astronaut medals, although the Mercury
astronauts got all the notice. (You got the medal back then for flying
50 miles through space.)

> don't know what "Naval" would/should become when speaking of Space ships
> (unless they are classed as space Navy that is) \

This is a long-standing tradition in science fiction. Space-based
navies in sf almost always inherit traditions from what are sometimes
called "wet navies" -- that is, ocean-based navies. The ranks are the
same, they use the same specialized language, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

"Christopher L. Estep" <pghammer21 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a1af664c911c331989680@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <BB878CA2.190B7%elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com>,
> elvisgump RemoveThis @NOhotmailSPAM.com says...
> > in article 3f620a48$0$33812$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net, Graham Kennedy
at
> > graham RemoveThis @ditl.org wrote on 9/12/03 1:02 PM:
> >
> > > Kasey Chang (remove EATSPAM to reply) wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Willem-Jan van Strien" <wjvs RemoveThis @xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > >> news:3f60fd4b$0$132$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
> > >>
> > >>> To my knowledge, the Excelsior had a working (tested = working
enough
> > >>
> > >> for me
> > >>
> > >>> Transwarp Drive System.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> They only said "it was supposed to..." but we never saw it actually
> > >> work. Nor
> > >> did they ever really referred to it as "tested", did they?
::::::::::Who said it didn't? maybe Transwarp expains the difference in Warp
calculations between TOS and TNG


> > > Doesn't it seem rather strange to build an entire, fully
> > > functional starship with a drive system that has never
> > > been tested, though?
:::::::::::nope done all the time in today's world

> > Sometimes things work in the lab that don't pan out in reality. It could
be
> > also that the Excelsior was always meant to be a regular warp ship and
that
> > the addition of the transwarp stuff was a last minute development.
> >
> > There are one-off examples like this in the modern US navy. IIRC the
nuclear
> > powered air-craft carrier USS Enterprise was the only carrier in it's
class
> > that was nuke powered until the larger Nimitz class superceded it. In
that
> > way USS Enterprise was a test platform for nuclear carriers eh?
:::::::::nope. there is a difference between 1 of a kind and a 1-off


> Exactly. Enterprise (CVN-65) is a one-off. In fact, Long Beach (the
> first nuclear-powered surface ship; she preceded Big E by three months)
> is also a one-off; her sister ships are conventionally powered.
:::::::::::Nope. Long Beach was a one of a kind design to incorporate both
Nuclear power and Aegis

> One of Big E's sister ships (in fact, she was built *later* than
> Enterprise) is the nearly-as-famous USS John Fitzgerald Kennedy (CV-6
> a *conventionally* powered carrier.
:::::::::: Nope. America CV66 and Kennedy CV67 are both one offs of the
Ranger class.
Kennedy is no where near as big as the Enterprise
(BTW Enterprise is no longer biggest by tonnage, but she is still the
longest CVN AFAIK)

> The United States Navy (in fact, this is true of most navies) is *rife*
> with *one-offs* or the understandable *improved-in-design* ships (where
> later technology improvements were built into later ships of a class,
> but could not be backfitted into earlier ships of the same class); the
> so-called *Los Angeles* (SSN-688) class of attack submarines is actually
> one primary class and two subclasses.

They call it "flights" in the Aegis Cruiser world the flights break up by
who has what weapon/sensor mix

> The Kidd-class DDGs weren't even intended for the *United States* Navy
> at all; they were originally built for the *Iranian* Navy, but were
> *frustrated* after the fall of the Shah and *forced* into the United
> States Navy by a pissed-on Congress. (These four ships make up the
> infamous *dead-admiral* class of DDGs all named after admirals that
> never won a battle while a flag officer.)
::::::::: actually named after admirals lost in world war 2.. and, I believe
killed at Pearl Harbor


> In Star Trek lore, Kirk's Enterprise (NCC-1701) is somewhat of a one-off
> (quite a number of improvements were designed in at the request of
> Captain Robert April). After Kirk brought her back from his five-year
> mission, Enterprise itself was the first (in fact, the only) ship of the
> Constitution (heavy cruiser - MK IX) class to undergo SLEIP (Service
> Life Extension and Improvement Program). Twenty *new-build* ships of
> what was termed MK-IXC/Enterprise-class heavy cruisers were originally
> authorized (a re-authorization primarily of the never built vessels of
> the MK-IXB class); however, no Enterprise-class starships (other than
> Intrepid II) were known to be built .
>
> Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes were
> made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to Enterprise
> (and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been suspected as being
> a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all hands).
>
> I strongly suspect that the *current* Sovereign-class Enterprise is yet
> another one-off (with several design changes from the basic Sovereign
> design), simply because ships named Enterprise are not *cookie-cutter*
> vessels (this goes all the way back to the *wind-powered* original
> Enterprise).
>
> As to why *transwarp* was abandoned, Scott's successful sabotage of
> Excelsior confirmed that transwarp as designed was unworkable (transwarp
> could *only* be made active while within warp; therefore, if warp drive
> was down, transwarp wouldn't work, either). Note that Excelsior was
> *not* scrapped (as we *all* know, Hikaru Sulu would later become her
> CO); however, the transwarp design was never activated in other ships of
> the class (or re-activated aboard Excelsior herself).
>
> Research continues on other FTW transport methods (including wormhole
> networks, *transporter ship* technologies, and Borg-type transwarp
> conduit technologies), which is part of the reason why Kathryn Janeway
> is chained to a desk (and is a flag officer) in Star Trek: Nemesis
> (Janeway, like Picard, is a scientist of some note, though it *does*
> seem odd that Janeway, who is actually younger than Picard, is now
> Picard's boss).
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned?? 

"Unforgiven" <jaapd3000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:borptu$1i5u0e$1@ID-136341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
> > Christopher L. Estep wrote:
> >
> >> Picard's Enterprise was also somewhat of a one-off; several changes
> >> were made to the basic design of the class, but were done only to
> >> Enterprise (and *not* to the original USS Galaxy; this has been
> >> suspected as being a partial cause of Galaxy's later loss with all
> >> hands).
> >
> > Not sure where you get all this from, but this at least is
> > incorrect. Last we heard the Galaxy was alive and well;
> > she was listed as one of the ships the E-E was going to
> > meet up with in Nemesis as it left Romulan space.
>
> Maybe he's confusing it with the USS Yamato, although the Enterprise
> surviving the same computer virus had to do with the crew's understanding
of
> what was causing the malfunctions rather than some upgrades the Yamato
> didn't have.
>
> I also distinctly remember that Picard was worried in that very episode
> (Contagion) that the malfunctions were do to an inherent design flaw in
the
> Galaxy class ships, which seems to suggest that the E-D was just a
> run-of-the-mill Galaxy (or if it wasn't, it implies that the Yamato at
least
> had the same modifications), at least at that point. We do know that some
> modifications were made later, as is shown in that episode where Geordie
> meets the real Leah Brahms, and she comments on him "screwing up her
engine
> design".
>
> As for the E-E, we really can't comment whether it's standard or not,
since
> I can't recall ever seeing another Sovereign class ship. In FC, LaForge
does
> say it's "the most advanced ship in the fleet", which sort of implies it's
> more advanced than the USS Sovereign, that is, assuming such a namegiving
> ship exists. I've seen the USS Sovereign in the game 'Bridge Commander',
but
> that's not canon. We do know that the Ent-E receives quite the weapons
> upgrade somewhere between Insurrection and Nemesis.
>
> All things considered, I think ship classes in Star Trek are reasonably
> straight forward. There are usually namegiver ships (USS Excelsior, USS
> Galaxy), and ships of the same class at least actually look the same.

:::::Not Necessarily. as a matter of fact, there is no evidence that
Starfleet follows the US Navy tradition
of naming the class after the lead ship few other Navies follow this
procedure
the RN, for example have theme names for thier ships, the Duke class and
County class destroyers come to mind
thier submarines are classed by the beginning letter of thier names
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Transwarp project abandoned??