Ambassador Class Variations
- Thread starter yotsuya
- Start date
The saucer is also a bit skewed…leaning one way in the top picture and in the other direction at bottom…or maybe one image flipped.
Now, was the tip of the shuttlebay damaged?
Let’s say a grip or someone chipped the tail.
You might have to cut straight across to even things up again. This might explain the biggest difference between the two—the shuttlebay width.
Two models…but I think one mold?
Mold release not work and it took a bit off?
That cut water that wraps around Ent-C’s bay does so less abruptly? Or my lying eyes?
It is clear from how the pieces were assembled for each of the ships that the model is made of 5 major pieces. The saucer, the secondary hull, the pylons, and two nacelles. The saucer and secondary hull connection is the most obvious difference between the two, with the secondary hull attached more forward. The pylon placement is also quite different. The pylons are more forward on the secondary hull. This makes the pylon join to the nacelles, which are only slightly forward from their position on Ent C, much further forward. The original placement seems to have the nacelles at the same vertical position on both. And in the first pictures of the uneven pylons that Doug Drexler took, you can see the port nacelle sagging at an odd angle (bow end angled down). Taking it off and cutting the pylon down would require rewiring the model. That is why I think they just stabilized the damage rather than altering the model. The lighting still works and both sides are equally lowered at this point. The model needs proper restoration.
I find the evolution and background of the Ambassador Class fascinating. Between the Prototype and the physical model and all the modifications in between yet there is not much canon info at all regarding commissioning dates, refit dates and overall use within Starfleet. The lost years as Dukhat says are an interesting era in Trek because no matter how you chalk it up, there wasn't much technological evolution or even uniform changes until the Galaxy Class project. Between 2293 and 2364 is a hell of a long time with very little canon information. I would like to start a joint project with other people's help from this forum to catalogue all the canon information we know about the lost era using references from TNG episodes and furthermore any conclusion we can gather about the Ambassador Classes role within Starfleet until most of them were presumably decommissioned by the time of the Dominion War. Leaving out any fan speculation and just using the info available to come to reasonable conclusions. Anyone interested?
Interested for sure. I don’t think there is any indication they were necessarily decommissioned after the war, it’s quite possible that either not many were built or many were destroyed.
I am.
Here’s a good start:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/history5.htm
One of the things that’s always been in contention is the dates for the Federation-Cardassian War, especially the Setlik III massacre. I contend that the event (and the war itself) took place not long before the start of TNG, based on the dialogue from ‘Tribunal.’
Here’s a good start:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/history5.htm
One of the things that’s always been in contention is the dates for the Federation-Cardassian War, especially the Setlik III massacre. I contend that the event (and the war itself) took place not long before the start of TNG, based on the dialogue from ‘Tribunal.’
I'll start by rewatching all the cardassian episodes of TNG then. We have Tapestry, YE, and the other couple of episodes with the Ambassador we can use as reference too. Any dates before 2264 will be useful. Making a timeline of the lost era would be a great start.
Yeah I love the entire design aesthetic for the Canon Ambassador Class depsite the model being built on the cheap. It looks like a perfect intermediary between the original Enterprise 1701 and the E-D. Imo the excelsior was designed specifically for it's transwarp drive, but conveniently it ended up being just as versatile as a conventional capital ship. It would largely explain the big differences between the E-B and E-C. Another explanation for the looks of the Ambassador Class could be that it was more resource appropriate to build ships with heavily upgraded TOS tech, which would explain away the design aesthetics including the reappearance of red bussard collectors, and a circular engineering hull, whilst it's layout and proportions would provide significant advantages that were carried over somewhat into the Galaxy Class. Some of the exterior design features could have been proven to be superior to the "movie era" starships despite their technology stemming from TOS. These features were again carried over to all the "Galaxy Class Era" starships which would explain the sudden reappearance of red Bussard Collectors and a circular Secondary Hull. And even the "light-bulb" Sensor Dome that moved unchanged from the 1701, skipped the A & B, right there on the C, skipping the D & E but shines just as bright on the underside of the F in Season 3 of Picard
Wierd how the tech seems to yo-yo back and forth between eras (definitely not because the shows weren't produced in chronological order) but I still try to rationalise it all somehow. Give me a Lost-Era Trek series already!
Last edited:
From my previous points you could summise that the Ambassador Class Warp Propulsion System was derived from the TOS technology that again evolved into what we see on all late 24th (and early 25th) century starships. The anomalous design aesthetic of the "movie era" ships would be chalked up to a rather successful offshoot that gave the 1701 Refit and Excelsior that distinctive plain appearance (no shiny red bulbs 
). I'm not hating on the Movie Era Design choices at all, in fact the 1701 Refit is almost a work of art in and of itself! But would explain the tiny or completely indistinguishable bussards and the plasma grills not being lit or at least not consistently lit. I particularly enjoy the fact that the E-B has some little Blue Bussards tacked on to the front of the nacelles, almost as if they were trying to forget the transwarp failure and logically return to more tried and traditional methods.
). I'm not hating on the Movie Era Design choices at all, in fact the 1701 Refit is almost a work of art in and of itself! But would explain the tiny or completely indistinguishable bussards and the plasma grills not being lit or at least not consistently lit. I particularly enjoy the fact that the E-B has some little Blue Bussards tacked on to the front of the nacelles, almost as if they were trying to forget the transwarp failure and logically return to more tried and traditional methods.
I also dig the Meyer Era "Naval" look. Particularly something about the Excelsior's ultra simplistic nacelles hits hard. The whole design refuses to show off its power, and proves itself on its actions alone. Hi Bird of Prey... Bye Bird of Prey.
If the Khitomer Accords were in any doubt of being signed, one look at the Excelsior's repetoir and they couldn't grab their pens fast enough!
I treat all the ships in the Ambassador family as if they actually existed. The Proto-Ambassador I call the Probert-class but in my mind it was like a design variation like the two different Constitution-class, either an upgrade or they were contemporaries, like the Excelsior to Enterprise-B. I also count the Pegasus-type and the Apollo-type as part of that family. It was awesome finding models of those on Sketchfab and in Armada.
Can I ask you to elaborate on that?
I also dig the Meyer Era "Naval" look. Particularly something about the Excelsior's ultra simplistic nacelles hits hard. The whole design refuses to show off its power, and proves itself on its actions alone. Hi Bird of Prey... Bye Bird of Prey.
This is what has always bugged me since ENT: There was always a distinct progression of starship design 'eras,' from TOS, to the TOS films, to pre-TNG, to TNG, to DS9, to VOY, and to the TNG films. Then all of a sudden we get these designs from 'prequels' that look far more advanced than what the former logical progression of designs showed. This is what happens when you make prequels using designers who were previously making stuff for shows taking place 100 to 200 years later.
The proto-Ambassador always felt like the Renaissance class to me.
I treat Probert's original as a prototype sketch. I treat Sternbach's first draft as the prototype. Basically the same design, but more in line with the way Jein built Ent C. I made this composit with all 4 versions. The top one is Probert's and in my view it was never built. The original Ambassador would look like the 2nd image.
Did the original golden model of the C have an eliptical saucer?
If the second image is the prototype then what practical reason would they have to revert the secondary hull to a more primitive looking design? The eliptical secondary hull on this one looks like a natural evolution from the Original Excelsior and was clearly carried over to the Galaxy class but not to the rest of the Ambassador Class ships? Hmmm
I have to admit though I am somewhat glad they changed the overall look from the 1st image, it looks just a tad too technologically advanced for it's era and too similar to the Galaxy. Just my 2 cents.
If the second image is the prototype then what practical reason would they have to revert the secondary hull to a more primitive looking design? The eliptical secondary hull on this one looks like a natural evolution from the Original Excelsior and was clearly carried over to the Galaxy class but not to the rest of the Ambassador Class ships? Hmmm
I have to admit though I am somewhat glad they changed the overall look from the 1st image, it looks just a tad too technologically advanced for it's era and too similar to the Galaxy. Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
It’s impossible to tell if the gold models had elliptical saucers, because they were only reliefs. Okuda mentioned that the original idea for the C was that it had an elliptical saucer, which was changed for the studio model because the round saucer was cheaper to produce. Yet Probert’s after-the-fact design retained the round saucer like the studio model’s. I’m not sure why Probert did that, unless it was just a recton.
Enterprise-C had a TOS like sensor dome--almost as if the refit lower dome treatment never happened. Excelsior and the Refit, reliant---they didn't look as friendly as other ships. SNW/Discoprise "smiles" like the TOS---the refit era movies are cooler...
Does anybody know how wide the Planetary Sensor Dome's FoV for scanning is?
