This is topic 32nd Century Ships in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2850.html

Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
 
So what website is everybody going to for discussing ships nowadays? Flare is the only place I go to.

Anyway, I going to start the new topic by first showing the ships shown on "the burn".

 -

 -
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
I guess this time TPTB can justify their cost saving ship recycling with Starfleet not having the resources to build new ships after the Burn.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Two of the type 5 and 8 ships also have a name and registry, but unfortunately they’re too small to make out. Hopefully Eaglemoss will release pics of the CGI models soon.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
How they gonna do models with detached nacelles tho?
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I’m guessing they’ll use clear plastic pylons. Unless they’ve discovered a way to bypass the laws of physics.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Type 5 had a name almost visible. A short name, 3-4 letters max with the last a S or G. In fact it looks like it could be USS Nog. It might have been the first ship so labelled, only for them to then use the name on a more prominent ship.

Type 8 has a visible registry but indistinct name. Longish, 9-10 characters - or maybe 5 hyphen 4. Another T’plana-Hath?

Worst of all is that the unnamed “Constitution-class” (the same as the Armstrong) appears to have the registry NCC-1864-M. Which can FUCK OFF FOREVER.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
I’m guessing they’ll use clear plastic pylons. Unless they’ve discovered a way to bypass the laws of physics.

First off, it's transparent aluminum, which is an old technology developed in San Francisco during the 80s... you remember that year, some Commie boarded a US aircraft carrier and whalers reported a bizarre UFO.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
And I keep telling you, this isn’t that universe. If anything we’re the Mirror Universe.
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
Worst of all is that the unnamed “Constitution-class” (the same as the Armstrong) appears to have the registry NCC-1864-M.

That was the ship, Owo was refering to as "new Constitution", wasn't it? So I guess she didn't mean "is that a new USS Constitution?" (which is kind of a dumb question anyhow) but rather is that the successor of the Constitution-class design lineage.

Not sure what the Reliant did to warrant this honour.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I think she did indeed read the name on the ship before making her statement. The fact that the actual CGI model had the registry of NCC-1864-M is meaningless, as it wasn’t meant to be seen up close, and probably had nothing to do with what the script said anyway. It was just an Easter egg.
 
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
 
 -
Promo image for "Die Trying"

 -
Eisenberg-class silhouette

 -
Type X - Voyager-J silhouette

 -
Type 5 silhouette
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
The Type 5 is precisely the sort of way-out-there design that one would expect of a Federation 800 years out from early TNG. I'm reminded of the ST magazine blurb from 1987 about the smooth, graceful six-foot Enterprise-D model, something about aesthetics surpassing technology and producing machines man would be proud to fly.

In reality, of course, that blurb never made much sense and could only have come from an artist. However, that graceful, strangely beautiful form evokes the memory, and for a fleeting moment I can almost feel Trek the way I did so long ago.

Naturally, then, they f*** it all up with totally different ugly things right alongside a bunch of retreads of their anti-chronological 2250's-meets-First-Contact mish-mash horsecrap designs that look like they're from 2400, at best, but would've been shown as old ships from 2200 anyway.

Ugh.
 
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
 
I heart ships.
 -
 -
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
These are all just plain lazy as fuck. Also, always trying to connect ship name to class name bothers me. Same with reusing Intrepid as a class name; I hate that, even when real-world wet navies do it.
 
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
 
Most of them are meh for me. I do admit to liking the Saturn, though. I could see myself getting one if/when it comes to STO.
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
So Starfleet ist still pretty much a 20th century Homo sapiens club with a touch of BLM.

Intrepid is the only class with a remotely Starfleet look. The rest are just weird shapes, more befitting for one of these cheap Syfy TV shows.

I'm impressed by the huge amount of creativity spent on the registry numbers.

[ January 07, 2021, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
There could be a good reason for a lot of the ships we’ve seen having 325xxx or even 3250xx registries - perhaps they were newly-built or about to be commissioned ships which weren’t powered up or even fuelled, and so escaped being destroyed in the Burn.
 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
So this is what we have so far. Did I forget something?

USS Annan* NCC-325051* Saturn class*
USS Armstrong NCC-317659 Constitution class
USS Cuyahoga
USS Giacconi NCC-316608
USS Hiraga Gennai
USS Jubayr* NCC-325068* Courage class*
USS Le Guin NCC-325060* Mars class*
USS Maathai* NCC-325023* Angelou class*
USS Noble NCC-325002 Constitution class
USS Nog NCC-325070 Eisenberg class*
USS Reliant NCC-1864-M Constitution class
USS Song NCC-325084 Courage class*
USS Tikhov NCC-1067-M
USS Voyager NCC-74656-J Intrepid class
USS Yelchin NCC-4774-E
NCC-325019
NCC-325072

*Behind the scenes sources
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Don’t have my list handy, but that looks about right.

NCC-325072 is the USS Hansando - the name is legible onscreen but it’s so close up you can’t tell which class it is.

https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1329853611564789764

There are still three classes unnamed: the flattened-capital-J-shaped ship (with four or eight nacelles if Jorg’s analysts is right) which has the 325019 reg; the four-nacelled ship; and the dual-long-nacelled one.

https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1349412689676742658
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I think the Hansando is the four-nacelled ship (the one that looks similar to the Section 31 four nacelled ship.)
 
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
 
There has to come a point where there is a reset of the numbers. It has happened before in real world and realistically should happen in the fantasy/sci-fi realm too.

For example the "Century Series" aircraft were all labled F-101, F-104 etc. then it was reset where numbers designations became F-14, F-15, F-16 etc. I realize this is a different format as it should be compared with Carrier hull numbers i.e. CVN-65, CVN-80 etc. but the number of hulls created in real life vs. the sci-fi realm is staggeringly different. There should either be a type classification such as "BB" for Battleship "CVN" for carrier etc. or a more organized numbering system.

IIRC, in TOS, there were only a DOZEN Constitution class starships. Now it seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of ships of the same class all needing absurdly long hull numbers. While this looks really cool on screen, the reality is that this actually dilutes the value of ANY individual ship. It's just another brick in the wall.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WizArtist II:
There has to come a point where there is a reset of the numbers. It has happened before in real world and realistically should happen in the fantasy/sci-fi realm too.

For example the "Century Series" aircraft were all labled F-101, F-104 etc. then it was reset where numbers designations became F-14, F-15, F-16 etc. I realize this is a different format as it should be compared with Carrier hull numbers i.e. CVN-65, CVN-80 etc. but the number of hulls created in real life vs. the sci-fi realm is staggeringly different. There should either be a type classification such as "BB" for Battleship "CVN" for carrier etc. or a more organized numbering system.

IIRC, in TOS, there were only a DOZEN Constitution class starships. Now it seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of ships of the same class all needing absurdly long hull numbers. While this looks really cool on screen, the reality is that this actually dilutes the value of ANY individual ship. It's just another brick in the wall.

Where's Jonah to once again tell us about what Matt Jeffries REALLY planned with hull numbers?
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Jokes aside, though, the amount of ships in 32Fleet generally depends on 1) what missions they're handling & where, & 2) what tech level they're at.

For late 24th/early 25th century, I postulated in my work a Starfleet of ~65,000 ships because the mission needs & the level of drive tech required that. But if by 3189 they can hit the Ocampan homeworld in the span of 2 years, then that dramaticlly reduces the needed number of ships; at those speeds, a fleet of, say, 600 could cover the entire galaxy. If the assurances of "not another Burn" are accepted, that means shipbuilding can renew, exploration can return, & the existing fleet doesn't need to stay so close to home all the time. Once that level of operation goes extragalactic, then there would probably be a needed return to tens of thousands of ships.

Also, who's going to crew them? If the Federation is that drastically reduced, then manpower issues require a reduced fleet, unless there are mostly or fully holo-crewed ships out there.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I agree with Wizartist. In my opinion, by 2499 PIC should have had starship registries with a different prefix, say NCV instead of NCC (which VOY even had precedence for with the Relativity’s registry), and start the numbering over. So those Inquiry class ships could have been NCV-01 to NCV-200 or whatever. And definitely by the 31st century, Starfleet should have switched over to a different numbering system, yet 700 years after the TNG era they’re still using NCC numbers.
 
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
 
Star Trek Online is about to add the Intrepid II class to the game, renamed the much more reasonable Janeway class.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Still ugly tho
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Is this going to be another one of those not-really-canon-but-might-as-well-be-as-it’ll-never-be-contradicted-by-proper-canon facts?

And, ugh. WTF is it with all the VOY veneration? Why does Janeway get a class named after her? Is what the ship did really all that special? Some obviously think so (you should have seen the outrage when I asked this on Twitter. “But she destroyed the Borg,” they sobbed furiously.* Really looking forward to rubbing it in their faces when the Borg are inevitably brought back in DSC - which they’re bound to do).

*There being Borg obviously live & assimilatin’ in the LDS titles seems to escape their notice
 
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
 
Cross-marketing for the new Prodigy show. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
And, ugh. WTF is it with all the VOY veneration? Why does Janeway get a class named after her? Is what the ship did really all that special?

Kristen Beyer is part of the writing staff.
 
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
 
So... the Courage-class is coming to STO next week.

Why do I bring this up? Because the ship's "gimmick" is that the player decides which end of the ship is "front" and which end is "back", with different abilities in each mode.

The cynic in me is wondering if anybody thought out which end is which when designing it.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
quote:
In its default configuration, a large secondary deflector and specialized set of sensors and emitters fuel the ship's scientific pursuits. However, by reversing its orientation, the ship's systems are redirected into a bulwark of defensive tactical capabilities that would not be out of place on its battlecruiser peers.
What, and I cannot stress this enough, the actual fuck?
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
My brain is trying to wrap itself around the logic of that description. The closest I can get is that the x-plus axis has the sensors and the x-minus axis has the shields… but even that makes no sense whatsoever. If they’re trying to say that it’s a science ship when flying “forward” and a warship when flying “backward”…. Well that’s just insane.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Those dinks come up with the dumbest bullshit to justify gameplay.

Anyway, obviously the big head part is the bow. It's got the fucking name & hull number on it.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Wait, they really called it a "science destroyer"? That's worse than the "fast attack frigate" & "penetration cruiser" nonsense from movie-era fandom.

But...they are right. Their description certainly destroys science.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Wait....it's a space mullet. Science in the front, battle in the rear.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
 -
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Were this the Original Universe at all, I would simply note that in the 32nd Century, the Federation powers their vessels with the rotating corpses of earlier starship designers.
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Yes, we get it, you hate everything in Star Trek that’s come out since 2001. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Dude, are you okay?

I mean, just on this page we have this STO (a Trek *game*) concept sent up hilariously (and with well-placed cursing) by Lee and Shik, with you yourself calling it "insane", but I join in the pile and suddenly it’s unacceptable hatey hatefulness with fanciful fake continuity of hateyness thrown in?

Uncool.

(The most ironic part about your strange reaction is that we're talking about my favorite 32nd Century Discoverse design.

http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2850.html#000011

Sheesh.)
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Sorry. The conversation was referring to the silly STO game mechanics, and I read your comment “were this the original universe at all” to refer to all the current shows and some other arguments that were overdone a while back.
 
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So this is what we have so far. Did I forget something?

In 'That Hope is You, Part 2' there is also a USS Yam... - unfortunately only the first three letters of the name are visible. If I had to guess, I would bet my money on the USS Yamato or USS Yamaguchi.

You can find the USS Yam... on the right side of the screen where the USS Discovery is returning to Starfleet HQ and the USS Nobel (Noble?) is on the left side.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Maybe root vegetables are extremely important in the far future, and it's just USS Yam.
 
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
 
At this point I can no longer rule this out for Discovery ...
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Yam is a perfectly viable Asian last name, so...
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
I kinda want to go out and buy a yam, and carve a couple warp nacelles into it… it wouldn’t look all that out of place in the 32nd century.
 
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
I think the Hansando is the four-nacelled ship (the one that looks similar to the Section 31 four nacelled ship.)

In the episode 'Scavengers' we have a pretty good view on the underside of the Type 6 class (the one with four nacelles, check out time code 19:22). The underside is wide and flat and does not have this stripe with dotted lights at the front end. Furthermore, the registry is not visible at the bow of the ship. Therefore I come to the conclusion that the USS Hansando is not a Type 6 class starship.

We have not seen the underside of a Tpye 8 class starship yet, but I assume that the USS Hansando is a ship of that class due to the fact that the engineering section (the lower half of the ship) is elongated and is a fit, more that any other new starhip class we have seen so far.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
According to the new Shipyards book, the Type 7 from page 1 of the thread is the Friendship-class (example ship USS Thant). And the four-nacelled Type 6 is the Merian-class. Only the J-shaped Type 8 (example ship USS Drusselhaus) remains without a class name.
 
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
 
Using the new Shipyards book Lee mentioned last week, the USS Hansando can be identified as the same class of ship the USS Nog is. Look for the thin red line that is below the registry. This red line and those bright, dotted lights can only be found on the Eisenberg-Class. By the way, the shot suggests that we see the bottom of the ship, but instead it is the lower half of the ship's front that we look at.
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3