Ambassador Class Variations

[yotsuya]

That depends on your point of view. For those wo believe USS Constitution was NCC-1700 and also believe in sequential numbering, every registry lower than 1700 for a Constitution is wrong.

Why would you insist on sequential numbering when we see so few ships with sequential numbers in Star Trek. That the TOS ships in the remastered version all are 1XXX pattern fits with what we later see in TNG and DS9. The numbers are all over the place. I too list the Constitution as 1700, Kongo as 1710, and Defiant as 1764, but I'm fine with Constellation as 1017, Republic as 1371, Intrepid as 1631, Exeter as 1672 and anything else remotely close.

 

[Spike730]

Because every time it wasn‘t sequential somebody messed up.

 

[yotsuya]

Because every time it wasn‘t sequential somebody messed up.

No, they were trying to make the fleet feel large. Showing a lot of sequential numbers implies a small fleet. Showing gaps in numbering show they placed larger orders for that class and kept building them over time.

 

[Spike730]

I have no problem with that. I just believe the class ship should have the lowest number.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vale]

I have no problem with that. I just believe the class ship should have the lowest number.

That may always be the original intent, but some numbers might be reserved/recycled or end up in the wrong sequence due to historical or administrative quirks. Looking at the space shuttle orbiters, for example; Enterprise is famously the first shuttle, but Challenger has a lower designation number (OV-101 and OV-099, respectively).

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Challenger has a lower designation number (OV-101 and OV-099, respectively).

That's because Challenger was originally built as a ground-based "test article" that was retrofitted after the fact as an orbiter as a cost-saving exercise due to in-service design changes to Columbia (OV-102) -- as a result of lessons learned during its early missions -- meaning that upgrading the sub-orbital glide capable Enterprise to full operations wasn't a viable option.

 

[David cgc]

Yep, sounds like a "historical or administrative quirk" to me.

 

[Vale]

That's because Challenger was originally built as a ground-based "test article" that was retrofitted after the fact as an orbiter as a cost-saving exercise due to in-service design changes to Columbia (OV-102) -- as a result of lessons learned during its early missions -- meaning that upgrading the sub-orbital glide capable Enterprise to full operations wasn't a viable option.

Indeed! And maybe starships with odd registry numbers that are way too low or way too high are, like Challenger, originally intended as test/training/development vehicles and only upgraded to fully active service status later – or, like Endeavour, are built from spare parts to replace lost ships some time after the main production runs are complete, and as they were never part of the original order they didn't have a number reserved for them at the time.

 

[publiusr]

Now of course we know there were TWO models thanks to Adam Savage:
https://trekmovie.com/2022/11/20/wa...e-model-busts-myth-of-tng-enterprise-c-model/


—but this site still has it that there is only the one:

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ambassador_class_model

The shuttlebays are the big tell—and how the saucer attaches.

A refined concept from fandom:
https://forums.scifi-meshes.com/discussion/10001172/a-ship-based-on-the-ambassador-class

 

[jackoverfull]

The shuttlebays are the big tell

in hindsight yes, but back when I studied the model around 2008 the general consensus was that the additional shuttlebay was added after the model was repaired to remove battle damage.

 

[yotsuya]

Now of course we know there were TWO models thanks to Adam Savage:
https://trekmovie.com/2022/11/20/wa...e-model-busts-myth-of-tng-enterprise-c-model/

There are other sources. I have a nice photo of Enterprise C (still battle damaged) sitting next to Enterprise E. Sorry, I can't share it.

—but this site still has it that there is only the one:

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ambassador_class_model

I fixed that. I redid the section to reflect 2 models.

The shuttlebays are the big tell—and how the saucer attaches.

A refined concept from fandom:
https://forums.scifi-meshes.com/discussion/10001172/a-ship-based-on-the-ambassador-class

 

[yotsuya]

in hindsight yes, but back when I studied the model around 2008 the general consensus was that the additional shuttlebay was added after the model was repaired to remove battle damage.

The two models were assembled different. Likely some difference in the armature. They are roughly the same length. It is the position of the secondary hull that is moved forward. Plus the deflector, the lower hanger (which is the Excelsior hanger, probably from Jein's Excelsior), the changes to the upper hanger, and other details. The number of lifeboats, the cowl around the bussard, and other finishing detail is different.

But learning that both models were in the same hands recently (not sure if by ownership or by loan) really cements it.

 

[jackoverfull]

Yes, now we know that, but until recently it was believed that there was only one model that was modified.

 

[publiusr]

It is the position of the secondary hull that is moved forward. Plus the deflector, the lower hanger (which is the Excelsior hanger, probably from Jein's Excelsior), the changes to the upper hanger, and other details. The number of lifeboats, the cowl around the bussard, and other finishing detail is different.

The lower nacelle mounting also. Since you already have some nice drawings--perhaps you could modify them to show the differences? I would love to see that.

 

[publiusr]

From Starshipmodeler---the Ent-C in a private collection?
https://ibb.co/g6nwtw8

Scroll down to the bottom to see more:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ambassador.htm
The Sci-art side views still has Yama's nacelles too high.

https://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=1812968#p1812968

 

[Dukhat]

From Starshipmodeler---the Ent-C in a private collection?
https://ibb.co/g6nwtw8

Scroll down to the bottom to see more:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ambassador.htm
The Sci-art side views still has Yama's nacelles too high.

https://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=1812968#p1812968

Yes, that photo was taken by @Search4 before he sold the model to someone else.

And that starshipmodeler link doesn’t work unless you are a member of the site.

 

[publiusr]

I would love to see those two models side-by-side...scanned...something.

 

[Rekkert]

During filming the nacelles on the second model weren't as low as they are on the model currently, so the Sci-art version is still quite accurate, even if by today's standars low poly. You can see on 'Emissary' that the second model nacelles sat just barely lower than the Enterprise-C ones on its final appearence, with the top being well in line with the saucer.

According to Doug Drexler, when the model was taken out of storage for a possible appearance in Generations, the port side pylon was damaged, as photos taken by the art department illustrate:

Again by Drexler's account, this pylon was cut and lowered, but as the model wasn't gonna be used in the movie after all, no work was done on the starboard side pylon.
Notice the different heights on the photo below, which given the ship's markings are after its appearance as the Yamaguchi.

Eventually the starboard pylon was cut as well, either for another possible appearance by the ship or as preparation for being auctioned off.

 

[yotsuya]

They mention that they're cut, but in my examination of those photos it does not look like they're cut. It looks like the nacelle has come loose from the pylon and fallen and all they've done is stabilize it at the lower location instead of raise it back up to the original location.