posted
I know, I know, this'll probably turn into another one of those multi-page threads where absolutely nothing gets solved.
I've been chatting with Masao about various issues relating to TOS registry numbers lately, trying to keep as many ideas sorted out as possible.
Recently I've really grown to like the idea of the Excelsior's transwarp project being a decade-plus long endeavor... it would explain the lack of a "registry gap" between the 1701 and the 2000, taking into account the TNG system and assuming that Starfleet's numbers were basically chronological right from the start.
I realized that we've got a minimum date to set here: the USS Constellation was destroyed by the Doomsday Machine some time in 2267 -- meaning that the prototype for the Constellation class can't have been started (or at least completed, if the prototype were renamed) before that year.
Since the Constellation had a registry of NX-1974, that means that the Excelsior's registry can NOT have been assigned any sooner than 2267!
(My explanation for the ship's "certification tests" in the TUC displays is that it was on a final testing phase following some refit or other. )
Considering that we also have a fairly definitive launch date of 2283 for the USS Hathaway, this would actually fit in pretty well!
Ideally, it would be nice to fit in FJ's Federation class design with the original registry number... but considering that Starfleet has the lower-numbered Constellation using the movie-era ship style, having an exact TOS-style dreadnought built new in 2270 seems less logical...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
no comment
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Following my Jeffries-extrapolated system, the Constitutions are the 17th Cruiser design, the Mirandas are the 18th, I knock the Constellation prototype down to NX-1900, the Excelsior is the 20th design, and the Federation class is the 21st.
The Miranda class introduced (in my scheme) the movie-style saucer and the oversized movie-style impulse deck (less refined technology). The Constellation I mark as the testbed for what would become the LN-64 nacelle -- albeit in truncated form. The Excelsior obviously took a while, even if they were building more before the transwarp project went phut. Which leaves the Federation to build a ship out of proven yet modified components to serve for the fifteen years or so until the Excelsior class is ready to move in...
But that's just my take, and it depends on discarding the FASA-Okuda system that is currently in vogue, as well as the Franz Joseph system that was almost all wrong.
--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: Following my Jeffries-extrapolated system, the Constitutions are the 17th Cruiser design, the Mirandas are the 18th, I knock the Constellation prototype down to NX-1900, the Excelsior is the 20th design, and the Federation class is the 21st.
Fair enough. Except the Federation isn't a cruiser. It's a Dreadnought. Having the first commissioned c.2270 with 'old' tech makes sense- after all, the Enterprise and the 'new' tech hadn't had a chance to prove themselves yet. However, it would make even more sense if the last few of the Federations were delayed and redesigned with 'new' tech following the evaluation of the Enterprise (and other classes) performance. The remainder could be bought up to specs in a refit program.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: Ideally, it would be nice to fit in FJ's Federation class design with the original registry number... but considering that Starfleet has the lower-numbered Constellation using the movie-era ship style, having an exact TOS-style dreadnought built new in 2270 seems less logical...
I had the same thought, which was why I drew a more appropriate design.
To be honest the exact timeing of these prototypes isn't really that vital sincee project can be delayed, haulted, put into mothballs, restarted and completed decades after their initiation. A senario that could apply to the Constellation. It's even possib;e that a Class development project can be re-named at some point. It's possible that the Constellation was originally going to be called "Crunchy Armadillo-Class" but was renamed when the Planet Kikker claimed the Constellation to honour the fallen vessel and it's crew.
posted
For those who didn't realize, I am specifically trying to reconcile this stuff with ALL of Trek so far -- meaning the TNG system of basically chronological registries with minimal reordering. (Or at least, minimal reordering in the TOS era when there were a lot fewer ships.)
quote:Originally posted by Topher: What is a dreadnought but a cruiser with more weapons and engines?
Right, agreed there.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: To be honest the exact timeing of these prototypes isn't really that vital sincee project can be delayed, haulted, put into mothballs, restarted and completed decades after their initiation.
Oh sure, that's possible. However, I'd prefer to think that if they really did delay the FJ Federation for 15 years, then it wouldn't look much like the TOS Enterprise at all.
More like your own design, Kris.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Topher: What is a dreadnought but a cruiser with more weapons and engines? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, agreed there.
Well, technically, it's a battleship with more guns and engines.... Just being difficult. But the different designation implies a different design purpose, eg. more combat oriented. I supose that it could be the 21st capital ship design?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Well, technically, it's a battleship with more guns and engines.... Just being difficult. But the different designation implies a different design purpose, eg. more combat oriented. I supose that it could be the 21st capital ship design?
I thought Dreadnought was a synonym for Battleship, named for the Dreadnought Class Battleships of the early 20th century...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Sort of; the Dreadnought class was just a large Battleship but it soon came to mena the type of ship that was bigger and better than a battleship, to differentiate between pre and post HMS Dreadnought vessels. Of course, then you've got battlecruisers and heavy cruisers and so on and on.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course maybe they just pulled some random numbers from their asses and decided to assign them and they actually do not have any sort of chronological meaning.
By the way I have been gone for the past 5 months and this is my way of getting back into the groove
-------------------- "Who cares if we bomb a few hospitals, it just means we got them a second time" Warrant Officer Robert Clift, CVN-71 OEF
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Just being difficult. But the different designation implies a different design purpose, eg. more combat oriented. I supose that it could be the 21st capital ship design?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
