Apparently, if the conceptart is to be believed, the Mayflower is indeed NCC-1621 and not NCC-1620. And unless it was redesigned to match one of the designs seen in the cadets' fleet, it was indeed not among them when they left for Vulcan in the film.
o2's suggestion of contacting Jaegar for clarification seems like a good one, but perhaps we should coordinate on that score so as not to overwhelm the poor fellow...
posted
I believe the Mayflower and Defiant type is the same class as the Type III ship from Bernd's STXI ship page, only the finished CGI model didn't have the rollbar.
Curious, o2...where does it say that the Mayflower is "Reliant class?"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think he just meant the one that looks like the Reliant, hence the quotation marks.
Yes, it is quite possible the design was simply tweaked to omit the rollbar in its final incarnation. Hopefully further information will come to light, but until such time we should probably abstain from drawing firm conclusions.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I see. The way he worded it was a bit vague. Although since we still don't have a good size estimate for these ships, one might not want to speculate that they were pre-refit versions of any TMP movie-era ships.
One thing I'd like to see is the name for the three-naceller in that diagram. Since it was the only ship of it's class, at least we might be able to pin down which ship it was. However, since we now have nine names for what were only supposed to be seven ships (Antares, Defiant, Newton, Odyssey, Truman, Farragut, Hood, Mayflower, and Wolcott) that might be difficult
-------------------- "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
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I think he just meant the one that looks like the Reliant, hence the quotation marks.
That's right. The Defiant and the Mayflower look like a ST 2009er version of the Reliant to me, but until know we have no reference to any new class-name, even not to the USS Kelvin or the Enterprise (and please don't tell me it's 'Starship' class *smile*).
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:One thing I'd like to see is the name for the three-naceller in that diagram. Since it was the only ship of it's class, at least we might be able to pin down which ship it was. However, since we now have nine names for what were only supposed to be seven ships (Antares, Defiant, Newton, Odyssey, Truman, Farragut, Hood, Mayflower, and Wolcott) that might be difficult
Hey, I can't count. There actually are nine ships docked at the station besides the Enterprise (maybe even ten or eleven too), because I didn't take into account the smaller ships, two of which look like they have a saucer and nacelles, which could be an indication they're Starfleet ships. Perhaps o2's point about not all the ships going to Vulcan was legit.
Also, from what I hear, the new Art of Star Trek book will have this ship diagram. So at least we'll have the name of the three-naceller pinned down.
-------------------- "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
Ask him what? What don't we already know about it? It was an unfinished, rather plain CGI model that was accidentally deleted from their files and will never be seen again.
-------------------- "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
My opinion is that this is just the concept, and neither the names nor the designs were set in stone at that time.
Some things to note: - The "Excelsior" may be just a placeholder, hence the color. - The Mayflower design probably doesn't have the rollbar (it better shouldn't have one, in order not to be too similar to the Armstrong) - More registry oddities, old-style ships with higher numbers than the Enterprise, although this may be easy to explain away - Perhaps the Mayflower registry was later corrected to NCC-1620 on the model? - If this is all to scale and the Enterprise is 700m, we have a whole fleet of monster ships. - The Mayflower saucer is not bigger than the one of the Enterprise though (how could it, at the stardock the ship of this design looks quite small). - NCC-1727: Newton's year of death, NCC-1769 should have better been NCC-1969...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
These ships in the concept art used names from the novelization. With the exception of the Newton, which is mentioned in dialog, and the Mayflower, seen as a wrecked CGI model, the other ships (Armstrong, Defiant, Excelsior) are unattested to in the final product.
My hope for class and registry information is fading as I am thinking we have here a similar situation to what occurred in the series Enterprise. With the exception of the titular ship, the other Starfleet ships weren't labeled.
Based on the concept art, the registry is placed on the sides of the nacelles. However, in the finished product, where there should be a registry, there is bare surface.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
Speaking of monster ships, this Memory Alpha article has a footnote way down the page stating that the blu-ray featurette lists the Kelvin's length at 1500 feet (457 meters). So yet another one to deal with...
-------------------- “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:Originally posted by vwuser: These ships in the concept art used names from the novelization.
I would think that would more likely be the other way around.
quote:My hope for class and registry information is fading as I am thinking we have here a similar situation to what occurred in the series Enterprise. With the exception of the titular ship, the other Starfleet ships weren't labeled.
No, you can see they are labelled in screenshots, both on their saucers and nacelles.
quote:Based on the concept art, the registry is placed on the sides of the nacelles. However, in the finished product, where there should be a registry, there is bare surface.
Again, incorrect. There are registries on the nacelles but unfortunately (and ironically) they are obscured by the running lights that are supposed to illuminate them.
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: - Perhaps the Mayflower registry was later corrected to NCC-1620 on the model?
- NCC-1727: Newton's year of death, NCC-1769 should have better been NCC-1969...
Wait...are you saying you'd rather have goofy in-joke registries than not?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I am looking at a photo from this article of the supposed USS Newton. I don't see the registry on the nacelle, and this is one of the clearest shots available of this ship.
Looking at the concept art, the registry would be situated near the aft end of nacelle, just forward of the two projecting ridges.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
As can be seen from the Kelvin model, the nacelle has lights for illuminating the registry, but paradoxically they are arranged such that under the lighting conditions we see the ships under in the film the registry is obscured.
In any case, there are also registries visible (though too indistinctly to make them out) on the saucers of the vessels in the spacedock master shot.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
