posted
Hey, I was just watchin' TSFS and I found that in addition to the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes, we've also seen those 'Transport Container' things too.
In the beginning, right as Kirk is pacing the bridge and his voice-over is saying "The death of spock is like an open wound..." he walks by a female technician who's looking up at a screen. Just as Kirk's body blocks the view, the screen switches to a side view of the ptolemy, w/ cargo module in tow. It's still visible as his body passes out of the way.
This is the pic from FJ's technical manual from the page w/ all the ships in profile together. So, from this we know:
1. That the modules are indeed called "Transport Containers" 2. That the one in tow of that particular Ptolemy is numbered NCC-4000. 3. All that 'Mk. I, Mk. II, etc.' info from that page.
Any-who, that's just a little tidbit I thought I'd share. Now I can add NCC-4000 to my ship list.
Oh, BTW, there's another little thing: We had confirmation thet the Enterprise and her sister ships were Constitution-class vessels long before TNG or STVI.
In the scene where Chekov is looking at a display of the Ent, when they're tracking down the disturbance in Spock's quarters, the first screen shown is the page from FJ's Tech. Man. The display reads:
CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER Constitution-class Starships
Pretty neat, huh? Oh, and BTW, I along w/a lot of others have noticed something a little funny about that display. It's the original configuration Connie, rather than the refit! (Of course, this can just be explained by the fact that the computer just uses the same display it always has for that particular function, so it doesn't indicate the fact that the configuartion of the ship has changed.)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I don't like the idea, that a transport container gets a registry.
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, but I guess we really don't know all that much about the internal workings of the system. They say 'Starfleet Transport Command' on them, so there's obviously some sort of special branch/etc that we don't know the specifics of.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, that is correct, except you need something to keep track of the pods. Hold on--NCC-4000? That's a bit high for the time period. And I think it should have a different registry prefix, like NAR-4000 or something.
posted
We could say it's the container of a Ptolemy-class vessel with the registry NCC-4000.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Except that the Ptolemy towing it is NCC-3801.
Oh wait, you mean say it's a different ships pod, right? I get it now.
Anyways, NCC-4000 isn't much more of a stretch than the NCC-3801 we already accept as the Ptolemy.
I've recently been thinking about that Scoutship, BTW. It might not be an actual ship all it's own. It might be just an auxiliary, a glorified shuttle. I nthat case, the registry would be the mother ship's. The Ticonderoga, perhaps?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I remember discussing the possibility that the Scout ship actually belonged to the Ticonderoga. Even so, it should have had a name. It appeared to be warp capable and just as much a starship as a Danube Class runabout.
posted
Can we get some screencaps of the NCC-4000 number? I want to be sure it was actually on screen, and that it wasn't cut off like the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy names were...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Some of the transport containers were actually "Starliners," self-contained ships all their own with impulse drive, deflector dishes and a main bridge. They could be used as lifeboats if something were to happen to the tug. I don't see a problem with registry in this case, as it is a ship.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Here are my thoughts: 1. The container registry was made up by the authors for that ship, because at the time they didn't know better. 2. The scoutship probably wasn't from the Ticonderoga, but part of that expedition who were monitoring the Ba'ku. According to the novel, the Ticonderoga was dispatched to the planet sometime after the beginning. I also believe the scout ship should have a name, but none is apparent.
I had just thought Ticonderoga because that's the only ship we know of from Insurrection. Oh, well.
Vogon Poet: IIRC, the designation Constitution-class first appeared in the FJ technical manual. However, it wasn't canonically confirmed (said on screen) until some episode of TNG. It was also on a diagram of the Ent-A in TUC. (The one Scotty was looking at in the galley.)
But as I said, it was also in STIII.
Fabrux: I know I'm not the first to think of it, thank you.
TSN: The registry isn't exactly visible on screen, but we know it's there because the display is of this picture from the technical manual.
Dukkie: Yeah, that was kinda cool, the way they had the sensor dish on the front and the Impulse modules on the back. Too bad THAT wasn't on a display. It's also a constant torture to me that we have seen all of this stuff, BUT NOT THE FEDERATION-CLASS DREADNOUGHT!!!!! The closest we've come is hearing about one of them (The U.S.S. Entente NCC-2120) in TMP.
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
