T O P I C R E V I E W
|
Brown_supahero
Member # 83
|
posted
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".

|
Spike
Member # 322
|
posted
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.
|
Dukhat
Member # 341
|
posted
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.
|
Shik
Member # 343
|
posted
How they gonna do models with detached nacelles tho?
|
Dukhat
Member # 341
|
posted
I’m guessing they’ll use clear plastic pylons. Unless they’ve discovered a way to bypass the laws of physics.
|
Lee
Member # 393
|
posted
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.
|
Hobbes
Member # 138
|
posted
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.
|
Lee
Member # 393
|
posted
And I keep telling you, this isn’t that universe. If anything we’re the Mirror Universe.
|
Spike
Member # 322
|
posted
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.
|
Dukhat
Member # 341
|
posted
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.
|
Brown_supahero
Member # 83
|
posted
 Promo image for "Die Trying"
 Eisenberg-class silhouette
 Type X - Voyager-J silhouette
 Type 5 silhouette
|
Guardian 2000
Member # 743
|
posted
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.
|
Brown_supahero
Member # 83
|
posted
I heart ships. 
|
Shik
Member # 343
|
posted
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.
|
Krenim
Member # 22
|
posted
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.
|
Spike
Member # 322
|
posted
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 ]
|
Lee
Member # 393
|
posted
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.
|
Spike
Member # 322
|
posted
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
|
Lee
Member # 393
|
posted
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
|
Dukhat
Member # 341
|
posted
I think the Hansando is the four-nacelled ship (the one that looks similar to the Section 31 four nacelled ship.)
|
WizArtist II
Member # 1425
|
posted
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.
|
Shik
Member # 343
|
posted
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?
|
Shik
Member # 343
|
posted
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.
|
Dukhat
Member # 341
|
posted
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.
|