Talk:Excelsior class

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Archived discussions can be found here

Contents 1 Maximum Speed 2 Registry chronology "theory" 3 Removed 4 uss alliance 5 Cargo bays or torpedo launchers 6 FA nomination

[edit] Maximum Speed

Do we have any reference for a maximum warp-speed in a canon-source? --Örlogskapten 09:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Although a line cut from the Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country script indicated that Sulu ordered the ship to "warp nine" to get to Khitomer in time. "Maximum warp" was mentioned in Star Trek Generations, but no factor was given. "High warp" was stated in "Tin Man", again no factor. "Maximum warp" was again mentioned in "Flashback", but again, no factor given. On a vaguer note, in "Paradise Lost", O'Brien was concerned about what "tinkering" that may have been "done to [the Lakota's] warp drive." That's about all there is to work with. --Alan 04:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Registry chronology "theory"

I removed:

• While there is no on-screen information to directly establish how long the Excelsior prototype was under construction, a clue may be found in the fact that in the early 2270s, there already existed an active-duty vessel with a registry 120 units higher than Excelsior's (the dreadnought USS Entente (NCC-2120)). If registry numbers are assigned sequentially, then Excelsior would have been in existence prior to that point.

• A decade plus might be considered an extended developmental period, but the fact that Starfleet was still tinkering with transwarp nearly a century later makes the amount of time spent on the prototype easier to understand.

• Many Excelsiors seen in TNG and later series have high registry numbers concurrent with the ships being built decades after the prototype but share its basic design.

This would be all well and good if there was a canon reference to registry number sequences being derived by date.

• After-action reports indicated that Captain Scott had succeeded in sabotaging the transwarp drive. The complexity of its design was its weakness, and the Excelsior returned to spacedock under impulse power.

Also, "after-action reports" and the entire last sentence were not referenced in any way. The Excelsior went kaput, and that was the last of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about the after action reports bit...not that it is unsourced per se, but it is already covered elsewhere in the article.

The rest I reformatted and returned to the article (since I WROTE much of it in the first place), making it clear it is BACKGROUND information, not part of the "canon" article.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, as I stated, not because I have my head up my ass and don't know what I am doing, but because there is no evidence regarding registry number assignments ever referenced it trek to support such speculation. In the future, it would be much appreciated if the discussion of questionable removed content was actually discussed before it was readded. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that registry numbers increase over time (as in between eras in general)...the older the ship, the smaller the number (conversely the newer the ship, the newer the number).

If the background note needs to be reworked to reflect that, we can work on it...Capt Christopher Donovan 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue here... registry numbers tend to increase over time. We can only assume that they always do, and that they indicate ship creation dates. Tend is not does.

Not knowing the "formula" for registry assignment, we can only assume so much from what facts exist: older ships tend to have lower registries... that's all we can figure. As such, that isn't definitive. So, we can't base any dates on that. At all. -- Sulfur 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

• Some fandom works interject that this class was named in honor of a lost-in-action USS Excelsior NCC-1718, of a subclass of the Constitution design. This is due to the fact that this ship name was originally proposed in the auxiliary list of possible Constitution ship names circulated behind-the-scenes in the last two years of The Original Series. This list was the basis of a ship list (the Bonhomme-Richard subclass) in Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual. This is how that ship's existence was further perpetuated, even though that manual is no longer taken as a canon reference by the producers.

Removed "fandom" from "apocrypha" section --Alan 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uss alliance

it was a ship used in the TOS novels but wasnt put into an episode where does these vessel stand? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs) .

The ship is non-canon so it has no place here. The right place for that kind of information is Memory Beta. The Memory Beta article for the ship can be found here. --Jörg 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

isnt that silly as the author intended that to be in the episode but the director decided to cut it out? it should at least have a long apocrypha – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs) .

Why? It was cut. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

i just think its unfair that it doesnt get mentioned at all beacuse its scene was cut, after all isnt the point of this is to be a reliable source for star trek infomation and in my opnion books are and deleted scenes are just as reliable as epsidoes and films – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunj01 (talk • contribs) .

No, the point of this site is to be a reliable source on canon information, and the definition of canon is well defined. We may mention short entries from a real world perspective on novels or deleted content, but we do not weigh it heavily or create long sections on single ships. That is what Memory Beta, our sister project is for. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, cut from what exactly? --Alan 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to question that to. If this is from a TOS novel, what episode could it be from? Couldn't have been a TOS episode, Excelsior class hadn't been conceived of. Movie? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cargo bays or torpedo launchers

The article reads: "Located in the forward section, above the deflector dish, were the port and starboard cargo bays, capable of taking in craft up to the size of a workbee." The MSD in the movie however states that those things are the two other torpedo launchers that we've never seen in action. [1] I dont remember how it was depicted in the film but seems to me like this cargo bay stuff is just conjecture, maybe the workbee was loading probes or something... --Pseudohuman 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that those cargo-bay doors within the dorsal 'neck' of the Excelsior-class are simply just that as we've almost never seen them used for anything else, other than the MSD for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and easily could be the result of a mislabel. Based on that, the pictures under "tactical systems" contradict eachother. One clearly shows USS Excelsior firing photon torpedoes from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and others are shots of a cargo bay being loaded by a work bee and are marked "Upper forward torpedo launcher". If they are indeed torpedo launchers why didn't Hikaru Sulu use them in STVI or any other time we've seen an Excelsior-class in action? Satyrquaze 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just note that what pseudohuman is referencing was changed here. But I do also want to note the contradiction in the statement "seems to me like this cargo bay stuff is just conjecture, maybe the workbee was loading probes or something...". --Alan 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that they weren't used in STVI might be, that they may be designed to be used only after a saucer separation to augment the star drive section's firepower. Similarly as the Galaxy-class cobra-head phaser only becomes available after a separation. If you look at the front-view (copy paste link [2]) of the Excelsior-class, the lower part of the saucer section blocks direct forward firing from the upper torpedo launchers. Also starships in trek rarely fire all their forward weapons at the same time even in extremely desperate situations. And I don't think there is a single ship design we have seen actually using on-screen every weapon system they have available. --Pseudohuman 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about it in the end, but I don't think the Galaxy's cobra-head phaser array is the best example since it is generally covered by the hull of the Saucer Section and about 7 decks. Whereas it would be merely unwise to fire torpedoes with such a limited firing arc because of the saucer section. Anyway, the Enterprise-D during the first encounter with the Borg during "Best of Both Worlds" probably comes pretty close to firing all of her forward weapons without Saucer Seperation. Satyrquaze 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the MSD, you can see that the upper launchers are actually below the lower saucer dome, so it's not as if they were fired they would self-destructive to the ship. --Alan 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in retrospect, I found a scan that confirms what you guys are saying. Satyrquaze 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was linked above in the first comment of this discussion. Any plans with that deck count image you uploaded? --Alan 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to upload it (didn't see it elsewhere) to this discussion and couldn't set it up with damaging the flow of the talk page. Satyrquaze 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination

Excelsior-class

Complete, thoroughly researched, fully illustrated. --Alan 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - This is a nicely researched and written article, with a lot of great background information.– Cleanse 06:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well written and complete, IMO. Looks good. – Tom 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Second. - Nice one! --36ophiuchi 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. --From Andoria with Love 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support --Pseudohuman 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan 13:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)