Miranda II vs Soyuz

posted on August 1st, 2011, 9:12 pm

Greez 2 all

I think it is an illogical one ship class names such as Miranda II to give. Miranda was the least Soyuz  Soyuz class - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki .

The design I like, but with a different name it would be more cannon.

regards
Stangi

posted on August 1st, 2011, 9:16 pm

What's so illogical about the name? It perfectly describes what it is; a modern successor to the Miranda. Literally a Miranda Mk2.

Certain;y a rather odd designation, but not exactly illogical.

posted on August 1st, 2011, 9:20 pm

The Miranda-II is an all-new ship, but designed at the same institute as the popular miranda class. it was given the name in honor of one of starfleets most successful ship classes (similar to the excelsior-II). The several later refits of the miranda class seem to share the basic craft chassis of the original ship.

posted on August 1st, 2011, 9:29 pm

OK... Galaxy.. hmm no, Ambasador II... ähm no, Excellsior II (very Hornor) öhm or Constituton II.. no no no. Galaxy is the name. 

I think a name linke "kirk class" is more cannon.. 

posted on August 1st, 2011, 9:42 pm

The Galaxy isn't a successor to the Ambassador, nor does honoring the Ambassador fit into its purpose. Those 2 only look similar.

Kirk Class isn't 'canon'... there was never a ship class of that name on the show.

posted on August 1st, 2011, 10:41 pm

hmm.. i need some help from German and english speaking people.

Was ich meine ist. Das ich es nicht cannon finde wenn man ein schiff nach einem vorgängermodel bennent.
Schließlich wurde die Galaxy classe nicht also Ambasador 2 usw. bennant. Beste bsp. war für mich die Miranda classe die einen nachfolger in der Soyuz schon hat... Ich entschuldige mich nochmals für mein schlechtes Englisch...

Grüße
Stangi

And with Google, but beware gooogle makes funny matters:

What I mean is. I do not think it cannon when a ship renames after a predecessor model.
Finally, the Galaxy was not so Ambasador classe 2, etc. bennant. Best bsp. Miranda was the one for me is the successor classe in the Soyuz has already ... I apologize again for my bad English ...

posted on August 1st, 2011, 11:03 pm

How do we know they don't do that? We've seen very little of the fleet and know nothing of how names are chosen. Canon has nothing on how they honor prior classes, though single ship names being reused implies they might consider it.

Sounds like you mean 'believable' or something, rather than canon.

posted on August 1st, 2011, 11:09 pm

I hope google do the work fine.

Sure. You're right, if you assume that the federation culture has nothing to do with today. Or do we call our ship all the same classes? But I think the new shape "variables" new names. Although I would not be the Miranda II, Kirk baptized. But at least give other names.

regards
Stangi

posted on August 2nd, 2011, 12:14 am

The Soyuz is way different from the M2 anyways. Its fine as is no need to change it.

[beserene]

posted on August 2nd, 2011, 4:02 am

Last edited by beserene on August 2nd, 2011, 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

I gonna answer in german:

Etwas Spekulation und man moege mich berichtigen falls ich falsch liege:

Die Soyuz war ein Vorlaeufer der Miranda, und wurde (wie bei Memory Alpha beschrieben) bereits Ende des 23. Jahrhunderts komplett ausgemustert.
Den Nachfolger, die Miranda, behielt man allerdings bis Ende des 24. Jh. bei - auch gut zu sehen in den Filmen und den Serien. Ich denke ebenso das das hier kein Zufall ist: die Soyuz wurde um 2280 ausgemustert, waehrend die Miranda-Produktion etwa um das gleiche Jahr herum anfing.

Spieltechnisch gehe ich davon aus das der Schiffstypus hier im Spiel nur Miranda II genannt wurde um den Refit zu verdeutlichen. Bei anderen Schiffen wie der E2 ist das ebenso der Fall.
Es handelt sich bei beiden nicht um neue Schiffe, sondern nur um Versionen mit Systemupgrades, um diese auf den Dominion-Krieg zu trimmen.

Anders ist dies bei den von dir erwaehnten Schiffstypen Constitution, Ambassador, Galaxy, Sovereign, alles an sich "neue" Klassen, die einfach nur vom Design aufeinander etwas aufbauen - wie fast alle Föderationsklassen.

Ob die nun eine Miranda II konstruieren ist zwangslaeufig egal, es ist und bleibt die urspruengliche Miranda mit Systemupgrades.

Hoffe ich konnte dir etwas weiterhelfen, Optec hatte es bereits schon sehr gut erklaert, lol 

posted on August 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am

Hmm, if I understand Stangi correctly, he argues, that the Miranda, which followed the Soyuz, is called Miranda and not Soyuz II. And because of that the Miranda II, which follows the Miranda, should get a new name as well, just like the Galaxy is not called Ambassador II. Tyler pointed out the differences between those already. Following this argumentation you'd have to call every Fed ship class Constitution + Number . At least all the "Enterprise classes".
Well, I think Optec pointed out the difference: while the Mirande is a further development of the Soyuz(which is already quite canonstretching to suggest), the Miranda II is a totally new ship, that just reuses the design of the Miranda.

[beserene]

posted on August 2nd, 2011, 9:14 am

Last edited by beserene on August 2nd, 2011, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Early decommissioning of the Soyuz Miranda-class starships are still in active service in the 24th century, some of them with high registries such as the second Saratoga NCC-31911. It is unlikely that there are on one hand dozens of different starship classes at a time, and on the other hand one of them survives several generations of other designs. If we nevertheless suppose it is customary to utilize a design for more than 100 years, why was the Soyuz class that seems to be a further development of the Miranda taken out of service more than 80 years before, as stated in TNG: "Cause and Effect"? The four characteristic sensor pods and the lack of the weapon rollbar suggest that the purpose of the Soyuz is significantly different than that of the Miranda. It is possible that the Soyuz was a specialized type of which only a few were completed for missions like border surveillance (perhaps as a 23rd century version of AWACS). When the Soyuz class was not needed any longer, they might have been retrofitted to standard Miranda-class ships, rather than decommissioned..

So the Miranda II is just a remake / refit based on design and chassis of Miranda I, same as the E II is based on chasis and design of E I?
While the Soyuz is a variant of the standard Miranda I, like Nebula class ships and their different variants that got a name as well.
Quite a long shot: the Soyuz is basically supposed to be the "Miranda Soyuz Type", which retired due no further need of that type?

Well, i guess we need to blame the Star Trek writers for this... 


P.S.:

....Following this argumentation you'd have to call every Fed ship class Constitution + Number . At least all the "Enterprise classes"

We should! 

[Optec]

posted on August 2nd, 2011, 9:14 am

Last edited by Optec on August 2nd, 2011, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Starships are much more than just their shape. While most Starfleet ships share the basic "enterprise-type" layout, they are completely different pieces of technology. Just compare the few shots we saw of the Ambassador interior to that of the Galaxy. Even though their bodies are quite similar, the Galaxy should have much less in common with the Ambassador than it has with the Nebula, which looks very different in its outer shape.

The Miranda is a very compact vessel. While we know almost nothing about the "true" interior or technological aspects of Star Trek vessel design, there must be a reason why the Miranda looks that way. There must be a reason why the engineers designed a complete new chassis layout, although a well tested one was available. In Fleet Operations lore, the Miranda carried a few very remarkable pieces of technology. Its primary systems, for example, were directly charged from its antimatter reactor, with much less energy/plasma transitions than required on other ships (consider the pure distance from the Enterprise's saucer systems to its core compared to the Miranda). Later on, a similar technology was used to directly charge phaser emitters from the antimatter core. Quite similar to the way the Defiant works. So, the Miranda has a lot more in common with the Defiant than with most other vessels, at least speaking of its design intentions. The Miranda-II was developed with the exact same goals in mind. Starfleet called for a vessels as agile, robust and - in the context of the Dominion War - well armed as the Miranda once was in its century. So the Miranda-II is some kind of "cover" of the old engineering concepts with the technology and achievements of the late 24th century.
Just to note down, there never was a "USS Miranda-II" or "USS Miranda-A". The Miranda-II vessel designations are carried on in the same SF registry as the original Miranda designations.

//edit:
A real life example that just came into my mind as I wrote an email
iPhones and Androids look very similar today too, although they are quite a different concept and technology. Yet both are classified as Smartphones, because they share the same technological intentions and are percepted as different specializations of the same "type of device". Ok, definitely not the best example.. but well, it just came to my mind!