Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
All the time I thought the Antares-class Hermes has to be a different design than the Batris/Xhosa/whatever-freighter. But maybe I have to change my mind.
Let's leave out the Antares from TOS, let the Encyclopedia-crap die. There's not a single indication that the ship from TOS has anything in common with the Antares-class, besides the name.
It's just curious; we saw the freighter-design and they called it Antares. Forget about other races, maybe they bougth some hulls, but the ship did also appear on that graveyard of Qualor 2. Okay, therw as also a D7, but it's... interesting. And then there is 'Author, Author', showing us exactly the same ship arriving at some dilithium-mine.
Maybe they really want that ship to be the Antares, and they want it to be a federation design. Forget Taylor, the Maquis-ship is not an Antares, forget Data, the bajoran ship is also not an Antares, but the more I think about it, the more I believe the theory that the Bartis-design could be an antares-class ship. And in some strange way, I even think it doesn't look that bad as a federation ship.
Maybe it's only because I'm tired...
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Let's leave out the Antares from TOS, let the Encyclopedia-crap die. There's not a single indication that the ship from TOS has anything in common with the Antares-class, besides the name.
That's not true. The whole thing was that the Xhosa was designed with TOS-style bridge displays and dedication plaque as a connection with the ship from "Charlie X".
Here's the way I look at it:
The root design, of which we have seen 4 distinct variations on to date (the Batris, Erstwhile, Norkova, and Xhosa, in use by various races from the Talarians to Akritirians to Humans) is simply that: a basic design of vessel that is quite common and extensively-circulated throughout the galaxy. Each race that acquires it from some outside source puts its own slant on it---hence the diverse modifications. The Federation no doubt got hold of the design the same way many other races did. Either from a member world, or an ally, or in a technology exchange with some other culture, as far back as the mid-23rd century. The first Federation/Starfleet vessel commissioned of the design was the U.S.S. Antares, which is where the class name originates. I think it's likely that in the TOS period the class looked something like the Xhosa, which is supported by the period-specific decor of that ship, but it doesn't have to be. It could just have easily been another, as-yet-unseen variant.
Over time, the design was upgraded, modified, overhauled, re-engineered many times over, (made possible and practical by the simple and durable design of the basic spaceframe) eventually becoming in the TNG-era the Norkova-type vessel. I'd imagine that this design is similar to what the U.S.S. Hermes would have looked like. A modernized version of a very old design. The Hermes could have been outfitted with standard Starfleet weapons systems, etc., making it useful for missions such as the laying of the tachyon grid and the blockading of Romulan ships in "Redemption." (The ships would be very versatile, easily equipped for mission-specific needs. This also explains why in "Charlie X" the Antares ship was referred to as everyhting from as cargo vessel/freighter to a science/probe ship.)
The Corvallen and Bajoran Antares-classes have nothing to do with this design family. It's just a coincidence that the Corvallens and Bajorans happened to both name ship classes after the same star that humans did. The few cases of what appears to be the same design in a role as a ship that's clearly too huge to actually be the same, etc., (ie, the ancient sublight freighter from TNG "Final Mission") is simply a case of the MODEL being used to represent something else---something we already frequently just nod and smile at anyway. (After all, when the Peregrine model, encrusted with add-on bits but clearly recognizable all the same, showed up as various guest ships in VGR, did we try to rationalize it as being part of the same design family as the Federation fighters? No. We simply look the other way and let it pass. The same goes here.) But as far as the designs mentioned above that show a strong continuity between each other go, there's no need to look away. There's a perfectly decent and none-too unbelievable explanation...as I hope I have demonstrated.
It all makes sense, when you really think about it.
-MMoM
[ March 14, 2002, 18:47: 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
posted
My idea about helping explain this (which I've mentioned a few times but no one seems to remember ) was that The Antares is a 'superclass' designation - i.e. applying to a variety of classes - mostly they've been transports/cargo vessels/freighters. This also could apply to the "Starship Class" as mentioned on the E-Nil's ded plaque. It just didn't DETAIL that it was a Constitution Class... So we have Starships like the Enterprises... and we have 'Antares'' which could be (as it seems to coincide with) transports/cargo vessels/freighters. AND it explain a long existant class. I hope that makes sense.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
It's so scary when two people in a row make sense here, so I just have to break the spell...
Perhaps the reference to "Antares class" is neither to an unbroken lineage of modifications of an original design, nor to a general category of ships, but rather to ships by a single manufacturer?
The putative Antares Corporation could build ships of similar characteristics but differences in shape and size, depending on the needs of the customer. The business could be galaxy-wide, explaining the Delta quadrant appearances of a shuttle-sized Batris-redress ("The Chute") or an "Ensign Ro Antares"-redress ("Ex Post Facto", "Drive") and the fact that the heroes often throw up their hands and declare an obvious Batris-redress an "unknown vessel". Antares Corporation simply is bigger and older than the UFP, and perhaps a bit enigmatic to boot. Or even out of the business already, but with a goodly number of completed vessels left behind.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I think this thread hates me. Yesterday, Explorer crashed when I entered this thread, today my answer (and it was a damn good answer) was erased when I hit the 'add Reply' button. No idea why that happened.
To summarize what I think: Mim: good idea AndrewR: good idea Timo: err... interesting.
I think the idea of a private company producing the Antares class as variants for different organisations and fleets is good, but I don't buy trhe idea that the Antares-design spread over the galaxy. The Voyager-ships are of different origin, what Mim suggested. Did they ever call a ship 'Antares-class' on Voyager? I remember some Numiri-craft being an Antares, but I'm not sure if it was mentioned on-screen.
For the Sterfleet version: If this is a public design, and enemies of the Federation can buy it, too, where's the logic in putting it into active service nontheless? Picard even said he wanted to have the Hermes in his fleet, not only as a neccessary evil.
Furthermore, we have the Hermes-class (TWOK). If there was a more advanced USS Hermes, why did Starfleet order more ships of the Antares class? The 10xxx-registry suggests a 24th century-ship, nothing that is 150 years old.
And one final thing: If the Hermes is the freighter-Antares, it has to be some specialized secret design, nothing that has ever been produced for public release like the other freighters, right?
And tomorrow we'll discuss the Apollo....
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Furthermore, we have the Hermes-class (TWOK). The 10xxx-registry suggests a 24th century-ship, nothing that is 150 years old.
You misunderstand me. The Hermes would absolutely NOT be a ship built in the 23rd century. I'm saying that because of the adaptability of the design, the Antares-class remained in production into the TNG-era 24th century, and probably is still being produced now. The newer vessels would have practically nothing in common with their TOS-era ancestors, except for the basic overall spaceframe, whose configuration is modular, from what we have seen. The Hermes would have been commissioned sometime during the Ambassador era or thereabouts. Probably long after the old Hermes-class vessel had been retired.
quote:And one final thing: If the Hermes is the freighter-Antares, it has to be some specialized secret design, nothing that has ever been produced for public release like the other freighters, right?
Not necessarily secret, at least no more so than any other standard SF design, but certainly not the same as the common freighters. A version engineered for military service. It's a bit like the Mirandas. Some of them are supply ships, some of them are ships-of-the-line, some of them are science vessels, etc...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I like Monkey's idea of all the Antareses' being the same design w/ various modifications. Recently, when I saw "Charlie X" again, I came to the conclusion that the Antares we see all over the place is the same as the SF class, simply because everything that was said about the USS Antares would easily fit the omni-freighter: the designation, the crew size, &c. It's ubiquity also explains why SF would be making ones in both the 5xx registry range and the 10xxx registry range. It's just one of those designs that last forever.
If necessary, Timo's suggestion even makes some sense, too. It would certainly explain why there are a couple of Antareses that look nothing like the others. However, I'm a little wary of having SF name a ship class after a company, so I think it's better to just say that those other ships are either named for the same star (which would be translated into the Federation Standard/English word "Antares" so people could pronounce it), or their names just happen to sound a bit like "Antares", so the name was corrupted into that.
And I'm not really too sure about Andrew's suggestion. A "superclass" (to use his terminology) of "starship" makes sense because a "starship" is a common noun, describing a type of ship. It's like "cruiser" or "explorer" or whatever. But "Antares" is a proper name. It wouldn't be very descriptive. If SF needed a "superclass" name to refer to frieghters, you'd think they'd just say "freighter".
[ March 15, 2002, 23:19: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Maybe the Antares-company had another name, but they named their classes after stars or stellar objects, like Antares. Of course, we get into troble if some of their freighters are called Rigel or Andromeda.
Or they assign numbers like 'Antares 747' or 'Antares A-310'. But then we get another mystery: Why does Starfleet call their class just Antares?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
I like the notion that the TOS Antares and the class of the Hermes are the same. It's not necessary, but it simplifies things. Even if the TOS Antares' registry is as low as 501, having another member of the class in the 10000s doesn't give it a longer production run than the Oberths, Mirandas, or Excelsiors -- all acknowledged workhorses of Starfleet.
The various dissimilar alien Antares freighters/transports/what-have-you would be the victim of Federation classification systems. When dealing with vessels operated by non-Federated powers, they refer to them by their equivalency to a Starfleet ship class. So a Bajoran Antares-class transport is the closest thing Bajor has to Starfleet's Antares, and never mind the indigenous name or designation for it...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The various dissimilar alien Antares freighters/transports/what-have-you would be the victim of Federation classification systems. When dealing with vessels operated by non-Federated powers, they refer to them by their equivalency to a Starfleet ship class. So a Bajoran Antares-class transport is the closest thing Bajor has to Starfleet's Antares, and never mind the indigenous name or designation for it...
--Jonah
I rather like that idea.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The various dissimilar alien Antares freighters/transports/what-have-you would be the victim of Federation classification systems. When dealing with vessels operated by non-Federated powers, they refer to them by their equivalency to a Starfleet ship class. So a Bajoran Antares-class transport is the closest thing Bajor has to Starfleet's Antares, and never mind the indigenous name or designation for it...
--Jonah
Hehe, just had an idea: Defiant's dedication says the ship was built at the Antares Fleet Yards, Bajoran sector. What if the Antares-reference was some sort of Sterfleet-in-joke to honor the Bajoran shipyards which kept building new ships for the resistance even during the occupation? Nothing to do with the 'Beta Antares'-shipyards in the Antares sector (where Prometheus comes from), just a honor for the bajorans working in that facility. I mean: maybe Sterfleet called all ships built there 'Antares'-vessels?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Or then these ships aren't of "Antares class" at all, but instead built by the Antereesklas, a race of famed shipwrights with purple skin and gills. "Look, it's an Antereesklas ship, right next to that Vulcan ship!"
One thing I must stress here: just because Starfleet opts to operate a ship class is no proof that the ship class is good for military or exploration missions. Surely Starfleet has a great need for ships dedicated to simple cargo-hauling or spare part delivery.
And surely Picard's desire to have the Hermes in his fleet in "Redemption" could be explained by his desire to have one more thing with warp engines and one of 'em Starfleet-issue generic radiation emitters, even if the Hermes had no weapons and little in the way of shields or sensors.
And there is no reason Starfleet would hesitate to operate a ship class its enemies also operate. Back on Earth, many armies operate weapon systems the enemy also possesses. Even if there's a danger of the enemy knowing the weaknesses of your weapons, this works both ways - you know his weaknesses as well. And in case of simple little noncombatant freighters, "knowing the weaknesses" would be a non-issue. In fact, if your ships work on the same grade of fuel as the enemy ships (or your weapons use the same kind of ammo), there's a major advantage to you since you can now pillage the enemy depots for your needs...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
