This is topic New ST Enyclopedia ship info in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Got the book yesterday. Just some quick observations:

1. There's a pic of the CGI of the Kobayashi Maru from ST '09. Its registry number is ECS-1022. (ECS registries are for Earth Cargo ships from ENT.)

2. Neither the Centaur nor the Kelvin have class names in their entries or on the ship list.

3. The U.S.S. Archer from NEM is listed as an Excelsior class ship in the ship listings.

4. The Biko is still erroneously listed as an Olympic class ship even though it's an Oberth on screen.

5. The U.S.S. Copernicus from STIV still has the erroneous registry of NCC-623 instead of 640.

6. The ECS Fortunate's registry is ECS-2801, higher than the more advanced Kobayashi Maru.

7. There's a runabout I've never heard of called the Ganda.

8. The second Grissom, NCC-42857, is still listed as an Oberth for some reason (the first Encyclopedia listed it as an Excelsior).

9. There's an S.S. Kogin, NAR-24016, and S.S. Manoa, NAR-28474, that I've never heard of.

10. The Vengeance from STID is given the class name Dreadnought.

11. There's an S.S. Wisconsin, NAR-50732.

12. There's a side view of the Enterprise-J, but annoyingly, no top view. I'm assuming we'll see that when the Ent-J Eaglemoss model comes out.

13. Not only is the Titan given the NCC-80102 registry (from the novels), it's also shown using the art from one of the novels. I believe this is the first time info from non-canon novels was used in the Encyclopedia (Okuda does mention this, though.)

The book's ok. I'm glad I didn't pay more than $88 for it, though. For an updated edition, they could have done a little more research. There was no attempt like in the past to come up with conjectural names, registries, and classes for any new ships since the last Encyclopedia came out, which was annoying.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The Valiant from NEM is listed as Intrepid class.

The Ganda is what we thought we heard as Gander, which was overdubbed from Ganges. Apparently, they actually rendered the runabout model with the name Ganda.

Kogin, Manoa, and Wisconsin were from updated graphics used in the remastering project of TNG.

Still no ship information used in original graphics from early TNG episodes. e.g. Atlantis

Some new nice CGI renders of some of the ships or class for which only a physical model had been used, though some are inaccurate. e.g. Hera or Soyuz class or Excelsior class

A nice render of the Norway class for which the original file had either been lost or corrupted.

Still perpetuating the idea that reboot Enterprise-nil is larger than Galaxy class.

Still using some inaccurate ship graphics from previous edition on some entries. e.g. Brattain

No info from some of the plastic models used on-screen. e.g. Yeager or Elkins

Some registries and class names from some of the ship entries are also still incorrect from previous editions. e.g. Saratoga as 1937 or 1867 or T'Kumbra as a Miranda.
Posted by Andru (Member # 2145) on :
Thanks for the new info. Is a class name also given for the USS Nova from Nemesis?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Any chance for shitty cellphone pix of relevant tables/info? I don't have the funds yet to get my own copy.
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
Im wondering whos CGI they used for the Soyuz cus sometimes they like use fan made ones without permission
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Originally posted by Andru:
Thanks for the new info. Is a class name also given for the USS Nova from Nemesis?

It's the prototype for the Nova class, even though it has a higher registry number than the Equinox. Okuda just makes up some bullshit reason why this is so.

Originally posted by Capt. Kaiser:
Im wondering whos CGI they used for the Soyuz cus sometimes they like use fan made ones without permission

Not only that, but unless I'm mistaken, the side view of the Enterprise-J is the same as Alice Orban's fan-made art from Bernd's site:

That explains why there's only a side view. I wonder what the policy is for blatantly ripping off someone else's artwork.

The more I look at this book, the more it annoys me. You'd think that in the 15 years since the last edition, they would have at least corrected the old errors, or done a little research other than just add the new info. The blatant ignoring of new ship info is really what pisses me off, as that was the primary reason why I bought the book. They could make a brand-new CGI mesh of the Norway class, but couldn't pull a class name or registry out of their ass for the ENT Intrepid type, the Abrams ships, or any starship past the later seasons of DS9?
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
Yep looks the same to me. Hopefully the artist was compensated.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
Bernd replaced Alice's side view of the Enterprise-J some time ago with the proper side-view of the CG model, published by Ben Robinson for the Starships Magazine. The side-view you linked above is the proper CG model and not Alice's side-view. So no harm done here!
Also, the Bozeman side-view seems to be from an upcoming edition of the Eaglemoss Magazine as well.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
I am in agreement with Dukat. I am hearing a podcast where Mike and Denise Okuda are talking about this book. They had two years to work on the book.

I read Mr. Okuda's comment about the Nova. I find it insulting.

In the entry, it is written,

"To the uninitiated, this might seem to be a mistake on the part of the graphics department, but we are entirely convinced that it's due to a bookkeeping error at the Starfleet DMV, undoubtedly the result of an unexplainable chronometric subspace anomaly."

Mr. Okuda did not update the Woden entry. Instead there is a dorsal view of the DY-100 class ship, with a background note saying, yay, we changed it for the remastered edition and it's of the same class as the Antares (NCC-501). There is as well no entry for the Yorkshire or for the Medusan starship. Yet, we have an entry for the Gorn ship. These inconsistencies irritate me.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
After skimming through the pages I'm really glad about Amazon's return policy.

It seems that they didn't bother to fix a single mistake from the previous 3rd edition. Feels like a quick money grab
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Seems like I'll stick with sites ex-astris-scientia and memory alpha. They seem more accurate and are free to view.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I don't think it was meant to be a blatant money grab. However, I also think that the Okudas and Pocket Books seriously underestimated what the fans really wanted out of this book. I myself only wanted two things: corrections to the mistakes from the previous edition, and updated ship information (registries, class names, obscure background/kitbashed ships, CGI models of the Abramsverse ships, etc.) I got neither of those things.

Again, if I hadn't only paid $88 for the book, I probably would have just returned it.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
From reading discussions on Memory Alpha, I think a third thing that fans wanted was answers to questions.

Like, for instance, what year did TMP occur in? Was it 2273 or later? Instead, they left TMP in 2271, ignoring the canon, where it was established that the 5-year mission in 2270 (Q2), and not answering the question

I too wanted CGI models of the Kelvin timeline - the starships and the shuttles. This timeline feels to me like it was brushed over. Neither the Narada nor the Knormain ship make an appearance in the 2-page alien ships at the end of the book.

Overall, i feel the glory days of the Encyclopedia are in the past. The world has moved on, and the Encyclopedia is a relic.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Wouldn't mind seeing the new Norway render, is it online at all?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Here you go. My scanner is old; hopefully someone else will have a better pic soon.

Here's the Kobayashi Maru too.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
As for updated ship information, what's the point of them simply inventing stuff?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Because that's what they did before. And I have a ship list to update [Wink]
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
Some of it would not be made up.

They could have added registry info for the Centaur, Honshu, and other ships whose registries appeared and were not mentioned in the encyclopedia.

Learning that a runabout model had been relabeled as Ganda, I would be curious to know if the model had a new registry number. Or NCC-73918's name.
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
Anyone got the Soyuz Class cgi from this book?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Last week eaglemoss released three views of the fed hero ships. Just wondering if its forum worthy discussion.

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
The Shenzhou works well as a 24/25th century Miranda-class replacement but certainly doesn't fit into the 2250s. Moreover, it's supposed to be older than the Discovery but looks more advanced.

The Discovery is in my opinion the ugliest hero ship in Trek's history by a long shot and one of the ugliest top 5 Federation designs.

I think the E-D and Voyager have some unflattering angles too and I had my qualms about the blatant Akira rip-off the NX-01 was, but this has no saving grace at all. It looks like one of those horrible FASA kitbashes from the 80s or a pizza wheel and I hope it gets destroyed by the space vamps before the season is over.

And what's with these cut outs? All they do is lengthen transport ways.

Still believe in sequential registries, so if it is indeed a new design, 1031 will irk me as well. Probably supposed to be an inane in-joke.
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
Space Shuttle Discovery is OV-103
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I fully endorse Spike's post, only seeking to add that the Discovery secondary hull side view looks like the Sovereign. Indeed, the neck reminds me of a Galaxy, just with a more extreme Sovereign-esque angle.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Spike is my new hero.

I'd like to add that these are some seriously shitty class names, too.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
I feel the same way about the Walker-class that I did about the NX-class: I really like the design, but definitely agree it looks too advanced for its time period.

Looking at those views of the Crossfield-class, though... At least I've finally nailed down exactly why it offends my asthetic sense so much: The saucer is way too small. If the diameter of the saucer was at least as big as the distance between the outer edges of the nacelles, I could tolerate everything else.
Posted by Tom Selleck in Mr. Baseball (Member # 239) on :
I really like the front and rear views of the Discovery, but the side and top and shit is real bad.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Nacellle's are just a tad too long. Not digging the bronze/brown hull coloration or the very flat delta secondary hull. If the nacelle's were canted just tiny bit instead of being straight horizontal I think I'd tolerate her more. Otherwise I agree that its the ugliest hero ship yet.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Wow. Agree completely on nacelle pylon angle. Upswept a hair would make the ship only somewhat less ridiculous, but a vastly improved form of ridiculousness.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Crossfield-class. Oh, well, I guess Scott Crossfield presumably getting a ship/class named after him isn't the end of the world. I'm just worried that the Walker-class is named after Gen. Edwin Walker..!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
It's not:

In reality, longtime Trek starship designer John Eaves revealed that the class name is actually named after X-15 test pilot Joe Walker, who flew spaceplanes for the United States in the mid-1960’s.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So Yeager, Crossfield, Walker and Armstrong get ship classes names after them. Better not tell Buzz Aldrin...
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
Originally posted by Lee:
So Yeager, Crossfield, Walker and Armstrong get ship classes names after them. Better not tell Buzz Aldrin...

He does have a type 15 shuttlepod in the eaglemoss collection named after him. [Big Grin]

© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3