I was recently watching TWOK and I happened to have my Star Fleet Technical Manual out. When those schematics came onscreen in the background, I noticed something. It appears that to produce that "computer-screen" effect, they just backlit the panel with a projection of a transparency of the actual manual page. You can verify this by comparing the book page with the screen. (If you don't have either the book or the film, there are some decent screenshots, and page scans at The Neutral Zone.)
So what?
Well, it means that now not only the designs are canonical, but so is all the other information on the page. (Specifically, the Class name and type, and the specs for the ships.)
So now, instead of three unknown TOS-era ship designs, we have canonical confirmation for the Hermes-class scout, Saladin-Class destroyer, and the Ptolemy-class tug/transport.
Also (not that it's important) has anyone noticed that this same display was seen on the bridge in STIII as well?
But I'm sure that they just used the Ptolemy and the Saladin.
If you look on these 2 pages, you'll see that it is the Saladin.
http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/Hermes_SaladinClass03.htm
http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/Hermes_SaladinClass03a.htm
Diagrams of ships as filler in displays is an iffy subject as far as "official-ness" is concerned. Yes, I agree that the diagrams are canon, but as far as we know no ships of those classes were ever built, as none were ever seen on screen or referred to in dialogue.
quote:
Could somebody post the manual for reference?
Klick on the UFP-Logo on the sites I posted.
quote:
I was always under the impression that the Hermes and the Saladin classes were identical, and apart from mission specifics, there were no other differences.
The Saladin has more phasers and the Hermes has no photon torpedos.
[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
As for the names, while TSN is correct about them not being on the ships themselves, the displays in the upper left corners read:
CLASS I DESTROYER
Saladin-Class Starships
CLASS I SCOUT
Hermes-Class Starships
CLASS I TRANSPORT/TUG
Ptolemy-Class Starships
While only the book and not the panels explicitly indicate the shown vessel to be the actual prototype of the class, I think it's fairly obvious. I am certainly prepared to accept the registries NCC-500, NCC-585, and NCC-3801 as those of the USS Saladin, USS Hermes, and USS Ptolemy, respectively.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim. I'd also like to say welcome to this fine forum establishment. Geeks are free to be geeks and trekkies don't get looked at strangely when they reveal some obscure fact about Trek, B5, Star Wars, or any other kind of sci-fi. LOL. Welcome!
Here are the pages of the Saladin, Hermes, and Ptolemy class ships from Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual.
Hermes Class Scout
Ptolemy Class Transport
Saladin Class Destroyer
"As for the names, while TSN is correct about them not being on the ships themselves, the displays in the upper left corners read..."
That not what I said. I said the names were cut off. The very words you are referring to were not onscreen, because the displays were round. The names "Saladin" and "Ptolemy" are just barely missing, but they are missing.
And as for the refitted versions:
The Ptolemy looks ugly, IMNSHO: http://titan.spaceports.com/~nzcabac/Federation/Other/PtolemyClass04.htm
It is for sure a SALADIN.
Note the lettering above the fore view and top view. If you look at the book, you'll see that only the Saladin has those letters there (they point to the photorps).
I want everyone to know that I am what some people call a 'canon freak.'I go very much by what we see onscreen. But, I do have to say, in this case TSN, I think we can dispense with the hullabaloo over some letters being cut-off. Most of the display is still there, and we are all aware (or should be 
) of what the dispaly says.
I like the Saladin, though I think the Ptolemy could've been worked out a little better.
The Saladin is exactly the same as the Freedom except it uses Connie parts instead of Galaxy. I didn't like either of those at first, but they're both growin' on me.
If you want them to appear of screen -you may have a long wait.
Also - don't forget that a Scout-class vessel (Columbia?) was mentioned during overheard subspace traffic during STMP.
With the DVDs of TWOK and TSFS can anyone post clearer images of the screens with the FJTM ships?
Thanks
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359.htm
Personally, I like most of these ships.
1. Scout U.S.S. Columbia, NCC-621
quote:
Originally posted by akb1979:
Freedom- and Challenger-class starships! There are pictures of those? Where? I've been looking for them for ages!
Go to Mr. Christopher's link. Read them and weep. Weep really hard.
The truth is that I really wouldn't mind the Niagara or Challenger at all if it weren't for the fact that the warp engines are so disproportionately large. If Okuda simply scalled down the warp engines a little bit, I would have liked both designs very much!
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
The following info has been taken directly from the Tech Manual for the various films:
1. Scout U.S.S. Columbia, NCC-621
(Mentioned in Epsilon IX radio chatter in TMP.
The Manual calls this Cygnus-class, but
that's not in the film.)
2. Scout U.S.S. Revere, NCC-595
(Also mentioned in TMP radio chatter. Manual
calls it a Hermes-class, but it isn't said in
the film to be of that class.)
3. Dreadnought U.S.S. Entente, NCC-2120
(This too was heard in the Epsilon IX radio
chatter in TMP. The thing is, it's very faint
and you can only hear it if you listen very
closely. It's sort of behind the rest of the
chatter, like background noise for the
background noise! 
Also, you may not be able
to hear it if you have the 'Special, Longer
Version' of the film, as I think some have said
it was later dubbed out. The Manual calls it
Federation-class, and a design is pictured, but
sadly, none of that is in the film. 
)
4. The aforementioned TWOK display ships:
a. Saladin-class destroyer U.S.S. Saladin,
NCC-500
b. Hermes-class scout U.S.S. Hermes, NCC-585
c. Ptolemy-class transport/tug U.S.S. Ptolemy,
NCC-3801
quote:
4. The aforementioned TWOK display ships:
a. Saladin-class destroyer U.S.S. Saladin,
NCC-500
b. Hermes-class scout U.S.S. Hermes, NCC-585
c. Ptolemy-class transport/tug U.S.S. Ptolemy,
NCC-3801
As Harry wrote, it's the Saladin on these displays. So the Hermes NCC-585 is still non-canon.
I can check TWOK right now, see if I can get anything good from it.
hmmm...anyone notice how effing BIG the Kobayashi Maru is for only being a fuel carrier? 147,000+ Metric Tonnes. Yet it's only 237m in length and 111m wide. What's the tonnage on the Enterprise?
Also, the Hermes is there. The 1st screen is the top view of the Saladin, the 2nd screen is the side and front of Saladin, the 3rd screen is top of the Hermes, 4th screen is side and front of Hermes, 5th screen is top of Ptolemy, and then it ends.
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]
It would be soooo sweet if we can find proof that the dreadnought is cannon....
As for the USS Entente, the ship has been removed from the dialogue of the Epsilon 9 exterior shots. I first noticed this in 1991 with the release of the widescreen version of The Motion Picture on video. In the place of this dialogue, there is added dialogue for the Columbia and Revere. I think this is the version that Mr. Okuda has. In his ship list, he lists every starship mentioned by name. A notable exception is the USS Entente. This starship is omitted from the list.
http://w1.314.telia.com/~u31412332/startrek/ships2.htm
quote:
the 3rd screen is top of the Hermes, 4th screen is side and front of Hermes
Do you have screenshots of them?
Searching for any info on the as of now close-to-canon Hermes, Saladin, Ptolemy, Cygnus and Federation classes is giving me a headache! Are there any Fandom-wizards around here? Technophyle perhaps?
Here's what I understand of it:
The Hermes class scout is introduced in 2224 (I personally would put that a little later, with the Constitution being the first class to use the familiar Constitution parts).
A batch of these Hermes ships is rebuilt to Cygnus class scouts in 2245, which supposedly looks like this:
The Saladin Class of destroyers is also built in 2245 (but they seem to have nothing to do with the Hermes production??). Supposedly these ships were "TMP'ed" in 2269.
The Federation class dreadnought was produced in small numbers from 2255. Supposedly upgraded TMP-style in 2275.
The Ptolemy is a tug/tranporter and was supposedly launched from 2224 (what is up with this date!?). Supposedly updated to something called the Moncrief class (a TMP version of the Ptolemy) as early as 2267.
But since Fandom and Co. are as always notoriously non-canon, I did all this work for nothing .
[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]
quote:
Originally posted by MIB:
Can you think about how cool those ships would look if they got the same type of refit that the Enterprise got?
There are/were a few games in which the E-nil-rifit look was applied to those classesm including the Federation class dreadnought. Nice.
You know. I once made a small simple kitbash of a TMPed Saladin. It looked very cool!
Not clicked yet? there is a diagram of it in the DS9 Tech manual.
I think the last scratchbuilds we got in DS9 where the Curry Class and the Yeager Class kit bashes.
The effects people simply didn't have the time or money to build new stuff.
quote:
Many of the diagrams seen in the Tech Manual were never seen on screen nor were models ever built for them.
Well, three of the six were seen: the Curry, the Yeager, and the Centaur.
quote:
They were simply made up.
I realize that I've posted this before, but not everyone might have read it. All of the diagrams WERE possibly based on models the VFX crew built for "A Time to Stand," whether they were used or not. Okuda confirms this, and I had previously suggested to anyone with Drexler's email address that they ask him about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend:
I don't know if anyone has twigged yet but we have seen a refit saladin/hermes.
Most likely somewhere in DS9 "A Time to Stand"Not clicked yet? there is a diagram of it in the DS9 Tech manual.
I think I know which ship your refering to. No, it was never seen in DS9. As a matter of fact, it's not the same ship at all.
)We don't yet know if all of the VFX models were used in an episode or not, but they may very well have been, as there are still some blurs in the background we can't see clearly. (Indeed, we may never truly know.) But it's almost a sure bet that all the designs in the Manual have their roots in actual production models and/or other materials, and weren't just 'made up.' Okuda, as said, has confirmed this.
To avoid embarrassing anybody, the VFX crew then would have included the less appealing ships in the very distant background, where their faults would not show. Most probably, all such ships would have been clustered in the one shot in "ATtS", for reasons of practicability.
Timo Saloniemi
The original source to all these designs would seem to be Franz Joseph's SF Tech Manual, but this included no dates. Dating was apparently added by the RPG that featured these designs (Perhaps Star Fleet Battles, which originally used non-Gregorian years, though). This dating (as adjusted to Gregorian dates by fans like Jimmy Dixon) suggested the Constitutions were indeed among the first ships to be built to this design - but in the 2220s, not in the 2240s. Saladin and Hermes were full contemporaries, and IIRC Ptolemy came two years later. Okudaic history of course disagrees on the Constitution dating. Another RPG, by FASA, added more "family members" in the 2240s, including the single-nacelled Larson destroyer (which, imaginatively enough, has the nacelle on the top...).
Various sources later added sub-classes and refit/successor designs to these ships. The picture is one interpretation of what Cygnus could have looked like, but it seems to show a truncated saucer (there's a sector missing from the aft side) - such a saucer was the trademark of the Amerind scout, another fanfic invention to use that funny-looking nacelle design. There's also the Cochise destroyer, the latter-day Saladin. These designs had their written origins in Todd Guenther's excellent "Ships of the Star Fleet", but the graphic interpretations come from a variety of sources and often contradict each other.
All in all, there are far too many fan-created Hermes, Saladin, Federation and Ptolemy adaptations to keep track on. Personally, I think we could commonly settle for these original "semi-canon" four, and only accept those of the derivatives that we personally find attractive. Otherwise, we'd have a Starfleet in the TOS movie era that had more ships than the modern Dominion and Borg fleets combined!
Timo Saloniemi
Maybe I'm I'm thinking of the Wolf 359 ships discussion...
this is how I think the nacelles would be configured
http://flareupload.hypermart.net/files/Consti~3.jpg
and just for fun, a dreadnought refit too 
http://flareupload.hypermart.net/files/Entente_refit.jpg
and no, I can't put them on the right way, its just a quick cut & paste to illustrate the configuration, there are no un obstructed colour frontviews of a connie nacelle for me to steal.
quote:
Originally posted by Reverend:
The fact that the DS9 tech stats say that the ship has 2 nacelles does not discount it as being a saladin/ptomley refit, the refit may well have required this for some technobable reason like...oh...the TOS nacelles were capable of generating a two lobed warpfield but at a high cost in energy but the Refit nacelles could only handle one lobe but with a much higher energy efficency and a higher warp factor, so 2 nacelles were better than one
You know. That actually makes some sense to me. Is that sad or what?
But to be honest I think that i'm full of shit...they really just look like the same class. Which is good enough for me.
For example, the big fleet at the end of "Call to Arms" -- there were a number of models in this shot, and then they filled in the background with CG ships like the Akira and the Steamrunner.
The scene with the Centaur, OTOH, was a relatively straightforward sequence. They would have used a model. Especially because they did some fairly up-close shots of both ships -- they don't do that with CGI's unless it's a very good model. But with a decent kitbash they wouldn't have to worry about the quality -- because it was the same as most other models.
IIRC, the Fact Files got ahold of it somehow, and that's how they got the registry when nobody else had it.
Either that, or they just made it up. (But of course we KNOW they never make ANYTHING up! )
With the physical models, they can use the kitbashes made of existing parts and throw them together for a few brief uses, and that's it. For the brief-appearance ships (like the Centaur), it's a whole lot simpler to use physical kitbashes.
What did they kitbash the Centaur from? Did they use cheap models you can buy from the store? A totally new mold for all the parts? Or did they actually rip up the Excelsior model to use the saucer?
BTW, the warp engines are just two Excelsior lower nacelle halves turned sideways. If you cut along the attachment points, knock out those sections, and then light the model, you can replicate precisely where the Centaur's nacelles glow.
Robert
The AMT/ERTL kit idea does make a lot of sense, and even more so when you start looking at some of the other models... for instance the Intrepid/Constitution kitbash. Frighteningly, that spec might actually be accurate if you consider the different component parts. There's the Danube nacelle pylons, the Constitution-refit nacelles, and an Intrepid saucer. (No clue about the secondary hull.) But those three components are all in close proportion to the DS9:TM schematic. (*shudder*)
Similarly, the little green tug seen in the same ep as the Shelley was a kitbash of various Models (Voyager, Rommie Warbird, etc.)
I think what they did was use two lower nacelle halves for each Centaur warp nacelle. If you perform the cutouts like I described and then back the opening with Lightsheet, you've got your glowing Centaur nacelle. Somewhere, there is a warp drive-less Excelsior model (sigh). I'm with you on the other kitbashes - someone hit them with an ugly stick! Someone needs to tell the FX guys to back away from the model parts before they hurt someone!
Robert
You've turned a simple thread I started about obscure ships from a computer display in TWOK and turned it into A MONSTROUS KITBASH BASHING FRENZY!!!
What can I say? We're trekkies! (Sorry for anyone offended by that term.)
But seriously, just what does everyone have against those DS9 ships? Personally, I like them.
I was getting tired of seeing more and more 'new tech' ships like the Nova and Sovereign, and any one of those Tech Manual ships is better than the Holoship! (C'mon, let's see somebody try and defend the Holoship!) I just wish we could get official names for them, other than those cheap 'something/something-class variant' monikers from the manual.
Okay, I'm done.
(Though I must say that the tri-nacelle Excelsior kitbash -- aka the Medusa -- is starting to grow on me.)
I do not, however, like the other ones in the Tech Manual. The Medusa has not grown on me even one tiny little bit since I first saw it
The tri-nacelled excelsior is cool! 
quote:
Originally posted by MIB:
I say we have MinutiaeMan commited for starting to like the Medusa. All in favor???
Thanks, but I've already been committed once...
[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: MinutiaeMan ]
quote:Scott's line was not meant to be taken literally. It was a hyperbolic statement meant to explain his frustration at the situation they were in, not be proof of the Enterprise's overall mass.
Originally posted by targetemployee:
The USS Enterprise is close to a million tons. ("Mudd's Women")
quote:What? It's a good ship.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop.
quote:Nigga, PLEEEAZE!! Not only do I still have my 2nd Edition shit. but I inherited my dad's 1st edition old-school hotness. AND dice.
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
My handbook and DM's guide are still version 3 B)
quote:Nigga, PLEEEAZE!! Not only do I still have my 2nd Edition shit. but I inherited my dad's 1st edition old-school hotness. AND dice.
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
My handbook and DM's guide are still version 3 B)
quote:Dont make me get all THACO on your ass!
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
I think people should just play whatever version they want to play regardless of what's current. I mean, there are people who still play 2nd ed.
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Scott's line was not meant to be taken literally. It was a hyperbolic statement meant to explain his frustration at the situation they were in, not be proof of the Enterprise's overall mass.
Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop.
quote:"Almost a million gross tons of vessel, depending on a hunk of crystal the size of my fist."
More from Vanguard:
Sorry, it's pet peeve of mine about the Canonistas. Every line of dialog in every show MUST be taken literally, along with every graphic, every display, ever set piece, even if the material was never intended as such.
))
quote:Scotty's statement neither follows the pattern of, nor is in the tone of, such an exasperated statement. Nobody responds to it as such. And so on.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
But, honestly, I still see the scene as it if was an exhasperated Scotty saying "This is rediculous!" more than any technically-oriented statement.
When I tell my daughters "I told you a thousand times to clean this room!", I haven't ACTUALLY told them a thousand times. It's a statement of exhasperation.
quote:It's entirely possible, and even likely. While you want a ship to be light for the purposes of moving it, you're going to want it well-protected and well-built for the purposes of not getting blown to bits.
Besides, the 'million tons' figure would make the Enterprise nearly a solid chunk of very heavy metals. Physically, it's impratical if not outright impossible.
quote:Hence all those advisors from Rand and such. Sure.
Unlike 'new Trek' and Okuda running the technology, TOS never really delved into the 'technobabble' all that much.
quote:Like I said, the line just doesn't seem to be meant as literal, and he certainly didn't need to report to the CAPTAIN on the mass of the ship. So I'm going to say Scotty was being himself, and not worry about it.
I mean can't you just say Scotty was using some other form of 'ton'? Maybe he was shortening from isoton.
quote:Who said it was supposed to be that? Not I, certainly.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
It was NEVER about being 'hard sci-fi', ever.
quote:First I've heard of such. Please go on.
The 190,000 figure came from all four of TOS's guides, which all CAME AFTER the final size of the ship.
quote:First I've heard of such. Where is that from?
Also, you know, considering that a full third of the secondary hull is expressly HOLLOW on the Enterprise,
quote:This started because of your general attack on the mental processes of those who accepted the evidence of the show to describe the show.
I think Rick started with a foolish assumption, and you're continuing the assumption in order to... win debates with Warsies because you MUST have as big as numbers as possible?
quote:Why in the world would you try to spin the statement into Scotty reporting the mass of the ship?
he certainly didn't need to report to the CAPTAIN on the mass of the ship
quote:Your entire web site, basically?
Who said it was supposed to be that? Not I, certainly.
quote:The writer's guides are available from Majel's marketing site. Pretty cheaply as well. But the writer's guide, when it describes the Enterprise, gives rough dimensions (about 1000 feet long) and it's weight. It was being compared to an aircraft carrier.
First I've heard of such. Please go on.
quote:The hangar deck ring a bell?
First I've heard of such. Where is that from?
quote:Ah, sorry, the exaggeration of "one-third" and implied stating of "expressly" confused me.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
quote:The hangar deck ring a bell?
First I've heard of such. Where is that from?
quote:Very good. And again, thanks for your assistance with my page.
But, we're done.
quote:You have to realize, I don't really care about canon all too much. But I do care about believability and consistancy (which, ironically, is why I don't care about canon).
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Why did you have to turn this into a childish ad hominem thing, Vanguard? It's an argument about the mass of a ship, not whose cock is bigger (i.e., interpretation of canon is more accurate).
quote:Ye, but who's cock is more massive?
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Why did you have to turn this into a childish ad hominem thing, Vanguard? It's an argument about the mass of a ship, not whose cock is bigger (i.e., interpretation of canon is more accurate).
quote:yeah yeah... I paid more attention to the 'free electrons' bit.
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Er, Vanguard. Protium is simple hydrogen. It's...quite stable, I assure you. It's what we would call "the most common element in the universe."
quote:The Hangar Deck is shown in TOS and TMP as going pretty far into the ship. (The writer's guide tech diagrams show it about as such.)
And by the way, why have you decided the arboretum obviously occupies 1/6 of the Ent-D and the hangar deck obviously occupies 1/3 of the secondary hull of the Ent-nil?
quote:What I wouldn't do for a MST3K of STV.
Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
If you wonder how he eats and breathes and other science facts, repeat to your self, "its just a show, I should really just relax".
quote:Note well nos. 2, 3, and 8.
Noun
Singular
canon
Plural
canons
canon (plural canons)
1. A generally accepted principle.
The trial must proceed according to the canons of law.
2. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field.
(A date for this quote is being sought): "the durable canon of American short fiction" — William Styron
3. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.
the entire Shakespeare canon
4. A eucharistic prayer, particularly, the Roman Canon.
5. A religious law or body of law decreed by the church.
We must proceed according to canon law.
6. An ecclesiastical title.
7. A piece of music in which the same melody is played by different voices, but beginning at different times.
Pachelbel’s Canon has become very popular.
8. (fandom) The works considered factual or official, usually within a specific franchise, which defines events, characters, etc. that are considered to have existence within the fictional universe.
quote:But don't you see? You walked in here 'prattily' making fun of "targetemployee" who simply quoted the canon figure -- "Next you'll tell me that Riker really DID serve aboard the USS Lollipop". Then when someone joked that it was a good ship, you went on all by yourself, continuing the attack on those who might dare disagree, noting the "pet peeve of mine about the Canonistas. Every line of dialog in every show MUST be taken literally {...}". Hence my initial response about straw men and name-calling.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
I don't mind if someone is going to disagree on the tech stuff. I mind if they're being prats about it, and insisting on 'rightthink'.
quote:My Volumetrics page, written in 2003, and its The 190,000 Tonne Fallacy section, written in 2005, are not about you.
Besides, the guy wrote an article on his web-page about how obviously stupid I was {...}
quote:I only waded into the thread after your weaponization of your anti-canon views.
Originally posted by Vanguard:
Look, to me a 'Canonista' isn't someone who worships the canon, but someone who worships his view of canon as a weapon against fellow fans. You have to subscribe to his 'rightthink' or you're really not a fan and should just shut up. And that's clearly what you and Daniel did.
quote:It supercedes the writer's guide numbers, by definition. A writer's guide is a vague blueprint of characters and setting, nothing more. It is not intended as a constraint, but a guide. Hence the name "guide".
I disagree in this case with the assertion of 'canon' about the mass, for several reasons. One, it's not the writer's guide's numbers.
quote:This is also a trash argument. I have provided the clip . . . there is no evidence in favor of exaggeration on his part.
It's from Scotty who is prone to exaggeration.
quote:
It's in a line of dialog that includes several OTHER major errors in it.
quote:Your argument is simple.
Simple enough, nae?