posted
I'm sure this list will be screamed at, but since the third Encyclopedia (2.5) didn't have a shiplist, I thought I'd make one on the ships whose class we don't know and could have been mentioned in a shiplist. Now this is non-canon, unofficial, and just what I think the classes and registries of these ships are until we get another shiplist.
USS Billings Nebula NCC-62143 "Night"
USS Centaur Centaur NCC-42043 "A Time to Stand"
USS Cortez Excelsior NCC-41889 "Favor the Bold"
USS Destiny Akira NCC-77652 "Shadows and Symbols"
USS Intrepid Intrepid NCC-73535 "In the Flesh"
USS Musashi Akira NCC-70325 "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River"
USS Olympia Oberth NCC-52144 "The Sound of Her Voice"
USS Saratoga Steamrunner NCC-62103 "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night"
USS Sarek Miranda NCC-58871 "Sacrifice of Angels"
USS Sentinel Saber NCC-63347 "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River"
USS Ticonderoga Excelsior NCC-42618 "Star Trek: Insurrection"
USS Veracruz Sovereign NCC-78815 "The Siege of AR-558"
posted
Trust me, Mr. C: With Mirandas, anyhting is possible...
The third Saratoga a steamrunner, eh? Seems like they had a tradition of naming Mirandas after it. Then again, they didn't have much luck with that...
I don't think the Veracruz would be a Sovvie. Don't they reserve those only for the movies?
BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.
An interesting list. I hope we actually get some of this kind of information in the (hopefully) forthcoming Encyc update.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.
Yes, and Miranda-class vessels are actually Constitutions. That's ridiculous.
[ July 18, 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
Mr. Christopher--I agree it is a high registry, but like the Mighty Mim says, we've seen it all with the Miranda class. Perhaps it should be NCC-38871, or a bit lower. Somehow, though, whenever I get a ship name, I think of a class for it. I just thought of Sovereign for the Veracruz. I wish the creators wouldv'e put some Sovereigns or Intrepids in some DS9 fight sequences. The DS9 Technical Manual said that Sovereigns can dock at the pylons, but we haven't seen any do it.
posted
Never mind, General. I found it. It's page 54.
Is the Sovvie the biggest thing the Feds have got?
Hey, it says that only vessels under 325 meters are protected by the station's shield envelope. Guess if you're anything bigger than a Connie refit, you'd better watch yer caboose!
[ July 18, 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
quote:BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.
When one usually speaks of variants, they are referring to vessels which share similar to exact designs, with only minor changes to either the interior or exterior. Examples:
Enterprise-A = variant model seen in Leah Brahms' office. Excelsior = Enterprise-B Reliant = Lantree = Saratoga Hermes = Saladin Equinox = Rhode Island Enterprise-D = Galaxy class ships in DS9
(the only instance where this does not work is the Bozeman, but there's a reason for that).
That said, the Centaur is not an Excelsior. The TM may state that it is a variant, but I disagree. Just as Spike said, the rearrangement of parts makes the Centaur as different from the Excelsior as the Constitution was from the Miranda. The writers of the TM didn't give the kitbashed ships class designations because they didn't really care. The "rearrangement of parts for quick entry into the war" was just BS.
quote:I've already resolved not to get caught up in any more arguments about that Technical Manual, so quit trolling.
You're the one who brought the TM up in the first place to support your argument.
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "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
There's nothing wrong with a radical re-arrangement being called a variant, IMHO, and as everyone knows I always try to go with the official publications, but to each his own.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I have seen the battle sequence where the starships Sitak and Majestic were being destroyed. The starship Majestic had a registry-NCC-31860. Her sister ship had no registry.
Responding to the few comments that I have heard on earlier threads, Mr. Okuda was feeling very unhappy either with the encyclopedia or the fans' reactions, or both. The last encyclopedia 'variation' may be the final one.
I am of the opinion that the encyclopedia and the technical manuals should have been done by a fan who had assistance from the staff, like the Concordance of Bjo Trimble in the early 1970's. I think asking Mr. Okuda or Mr. Sternbach to do these works was way over the top. The works reflect that they didn't have the time to properly research their works, annotate their research findings, and proofread the finished work for mistakes and omissions.
And I think what helped Ms. Trimble in her research, which is sorely lacking in modern Trek, is that the producers respected their fans and were appreciative to their fans who devotedly and fervently supported Star Trek.
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
quote:I have seen the battle sequence where the starships Sitak and Majestic were being destroyed. The starship Majestic had a registry-NCC-31860. Her sister ship had no registry.
IIRC Foundation Imaging did these scenes. Maybe Mojo can help us here.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
posted
Sorry about that wait for the TM thing, Mim. I was off checking my e-mail. I hope, targetemployee and everyone else, that another encyclopedia does come out, so we can get a list like this. And I hope that ship book coming out in winter is good, and not contradicting of everything ever talked about on the Starships & Technology Forum.
posted
"IIRC Foundation Imaging did these scenes. Maybe Mojo can help us here."
I dunno. I don't think he means that he can't read the registry. I think it means it wasn't there. It was a trend that grew as DS9 went along. Ships started to lose all their external signage. It's not like the Odessey, which just had the hardest to read signage of all (although, for some of the resued Enterprise shots from Emissary, the registry is missing, as if they'd simply removed it with photoshop from the existing shot); by Call to Arms, loads of ships were flying around willy nilly without any way of telling what they are.
Considering the number of CGI ships being thrown about, I guess it was a case of most ships having no registry, or the same registry. And can you imagine the nightmare we'd have if every Excelsior in SofA was called (for example) the Arseface?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
I agree. How hard would it be to think of a name and regisrty for every ship we had a close up of? They did it in "Tears of the Prophets," yes, but that was the only time on a large scale and it was a season finale, which they had a bigger budget for.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
