posted
I forgot to mention in the opening post that, although I have assigned a color for them in the key, I have yet to add information from Jeri Taylor's Pathways and Mosaic to this list. Mostly because it's been years since I read the first one and I never even finished the second one. If anyone is familiar with them and can give me page numbers where ships are mentioned, please feel free.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Heh. U.S.S. Voyeur. Boldly peeping where no Tom has peeped before.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Another interesting thing Okuda mentioned is that both the Antares and the Yorkshire, while having NCC registries, do not have "U.S.S. ANTARES" or "U.S.S. YORKSHIRE" on their hulls as the Connies do. Rather, their names are in red script on the sides of the ships, a la the TOS shuttlecrafts, without any "U.S.S." or even "S.S," implying that they are either not true starships, or that their registration is Federation but not necessarily Starfleet, although they'd be considered Starfleet property as much as a shuttlecraft would be.
At least this kind of refutes the Antares-class U.S.S. Hermes from TNG as being the same type of ship as this.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think either of those options makes much sense, though. It doesn't seem from the dialogue in "Charlie X" that the Antares is being deployed from a mother ship, but rather operates independently. So they aren't shuttles. And if they are non-Starfleet, why do they have NCC registries and Starfleet signage?
My guess is that they are perhaps older vessels that are now relegated to support duties. This is supported by the low registry numbers, the old-style uniform worn by Ramart, and the lack of a USS prefix. We know that in the ENT era, SF didn't use prefixes and by the time of "The Cage" they did. These vessels would be from sometime after the former and before the latter.
Somehow this probably ties in with the similar-looking automated drone ships from "More Tribbles, More Troubles" (TAS) as well, but I'm not entirely sure of exactly how at this point. There's the additional fact that both of those vessels were marked with the same NCC-G1465 registry. There may also be some tie with the special registries (with letter designations) used by support vessels in TAS. Maybe SF was trying to figure out how best to transition between practices and was reclassifying older vessels as part of the practice? I really don't know.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
But in the ENT era, it wasn't the same Starfleet. Human Starfleet != Federation Starfleet. And I thought TAS was non-canon?
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
There was NEVER any intention whatsoever on the part of anyone associated with the production of ENT for that show's Starfleet to be a different organization than the one of the rest of Trek. It was ALWAYS intended for it to be the same organization in its early stages. The idea that it's somehow a separate entity with the same name was proposed bt FANS on this very message board to "explain" what were thought of at the time as continuity errors in the new show.
TAS was declared noncanonical by Gene Roddenberry because he and DC Fontana had a falling out (same as with Franz Joseph and the 3-nacelle rule) and because he wanted a clean slate to work with on TNG (he also substantially barred the show from referencing TOS while he was in control). His stooge "archivist" Richard Arnold carried on this ridiculous "official" position long after Roddenberry's death, but all the while DS9 and later ENT (and now TOSR) were including TAS references. Now that the show has been released on DVD with the other series, it's pretty much back to canonical status by default. The DVDs even came packaged with liner notes to that effect.
In any case, though, the main objective behind color coding the data in my list was to avoid just these kinds of arguments. If you refuse to accept TAS, just ignore the light blue stuff. If you refuse to accept the Encyclopedia and other conjectural materials, ignore the gray stuff. Etc.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I had to justify the Yorkshire name for inclusion in my Draylax-class surveyors. Lame, but I managed to convince myself.
Wanted to ask, though.."Emmette?"
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I just have one question : Why would you assume that, just because the ship doesn't have "U. S. S." painted on it, there's definitely no "USS" in the ship's name?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Well, I really don't like the idea of human Starfleet becoming the exact same as Federation Starfleet. That just really underscores the "Homo sapiens-only club" aspect of the Federation. I'd rather believe it isn't the same.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Wanted to ask, though.."Emmette?"
Apparently that's what the delta-shaped ship with the Star Destroyer engines seen flying over the Moon in the opening credits of ENT was called by the VFX guys behind the scenes.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
