The starship names rendered barely legible on the final page due to damage to the prop are listed in Bjo Trimble's revised Star Trek Concordance: Challenger, Constellation, Scovill (see note below), Lantree, Oberth, Emden, Korolev, and Ahwahnee. This final page was not shown onscreen in any version of the film, but the same list of ships was also used on multiple computer displays on the Enterprise-A bridge in the film. I tracked down the shots in which the list is most visible (at upper right; smaller version also at lower left in the second two):
The assignments themselves would be next to impossible to make out from the screencaps alone, but here again the Concordance helps us out:
USS EXCELSIOR NCC-2000: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION USS POTEMKIN NCC-1657: SCIENTIFIC SURVEY MISSION USS JOHN MUIR NCC-1732: SYSTEM UPGRADE USS HELIN NCC-1692: NEUTRAL ZONE PATROL
USS ENDEAVOUR NCC-1895: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION USS EAGLE NCC-956: COLONY RESUPPLY USS REPUBLIC NCC-1371: NEUTRAL ZONE PATROL USS KONGO NCC-1710: NEUTRAL ZONE PATROL USS WHORFIN NCC-1024: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION* USS SPRINGFIELD NCC-1963: NEUTRAL ZONE PATROL
USS CHALLENGER NCC-2032: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION USS CONSTELLATION NX-1974: CERTIFICATION TESTS USS SCOVILL NCC-1598: ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH USS LANTREE NCC-1837: COLONY RESUPPLY USS OBERTH NCC-602: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION USS EMDEN NCC-1856: NEUTRAL ZONE PATROL USS KOROLEV NCC-2014: DIPLOMATIC MISSION USS AHWAHNEE NCC-2048: DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION
*The Concordance says: "A deep space exploration ship seen on a mission assignment listing, it is on neutral zone patrol." But by comparison to the other listings, we can see that it is the former rather than the latter which is on the display.
I would assume the locations are the same between the two charts, except there does appear to be at least one variation, in that the Constellation is listed on the "Retrieve" chart as being in Sector 23006, whereas it is at Starbase 24 per the mission assignment list. On the other hand, the Concordance suggests that the locations of the John Muir (also Starbase 24), Helin (Sector 21290), and Lantree (Sector 22858) are indeed the same on both.
NOTE: The Concordance misspells the Endeavour and Scovill's names as Endeavor and Scovil, respectively. Another oddity regarding the Scovill previously pointed out here is that the Concordance says she is named for "Jack Scovil [sic], American astronaut" but internet searches turn up no mention of any such individual. There was a literary agent by that name whose clients included Arthur C. Clarke and Carl Sagan, though. I wonder if maybe she was told by Okuda that he named it for this Scovil (with the "astronaut" bit being an "honorary" appellation due to his contribution to space literature) and he inadvertently misspelled the name? (I haven't communicated with Okuda in a long time and I don't think the e-mail address I had for him is still valid; it would be nice if someone who knows how to get in touch with him currently could look into this possibility. Not that it's of any particularly great importance, of course.) In any case, the name on the chart and the display is clearly Scovill, with two 'l's.
IMAGE SOURCES: "Operation Retrieve" prop pictures from here. Screenshots of Starship Mission Status display from here.
[ August 18, 2016, 05:26 AM: 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
quote:Originally posted by Andru: Great stuff! It's a shame that the prop was damaged in such a way, but at least we still have pictures from better days:
To be clear, I believe the prop was already damaged at the point those pictures were taken, and they were simply photoshopped to fill in the blanks.
-------------------- 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
Jack Scovil may have been the agent for Bjo or a friend, but I find a Charles Scovil, former curator of Stamford Observatory in Stamford, CT, for 51 years—mostly likely the "real" namesake, given that Helin is named for astronomer Eleanor Helin.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
"Because after ST:VI TUC wrapped, these were thrown in the trash heap. GASP!!! Yup, we all know that's what they did back then. But we can all thank Penny Juday for rescuing them."
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Y'know, the Eagle, Emden, and Ahwahnee have long been thought to be Connies based on their silhouettes, with the Eagle's smaller size thought to be from perspective, but with the Emden and Ahwahnee being smaller than Endeavour on the little side-chart I am no longer convinced of this.
Edit: Actually, the Emden looks like a regular Connie on the prior, wider-scale page, so nevermind. The size differences of the ship icons are thus just confusing.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Y'know, the Eagle, Emden, and Ahwahnee have long been thought to be Connies based on their silhouettes, with the Eagle's smaller size thought to be from perspective, but with the Emden and Ahwahnee being smaller than Endeavour on the little side-chart I am no longer convinced of this.
Edit: Actually, the Emden looks like a regular Connie on the prior, wider-scale page, so nevermind. The size differences of the ship icons are thus just confusing.
The only real problem is Emden, as Korolev doesn't show up on the other page and Potemkin still has the same (large) silhouette. The smaller ship could be the silhouette of a TOS-Constitution (the pylon angle seems to be different). Still, assuming that the size of the silhouette is meant to represent the actual ship size (Excelsior is still larger than the C-refits, after all), it might be intended to represent a different class alltogether.
First is Endeavour, second is little ship upscaled, third is little ship original size, from page 3 of the chart.
Second pic is a comparison of top view silhouettes
[ March 12, 2017, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Amasov Prime ]
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I doubt the production team went to the trouble of establishing a class and design for the Emden and other unknown vessels in the presentation. To me the silhouette looks very arbitrary and certainly not a pre-refit constitution class. The nacelle pylons are too thick.
It is likely a case of a hastily drawn silhouette purely for illustration purposes.
posted
Yep, I'd have to agree. As much as we'd like to see something different, they just seem to be silhouettes of a TMP Connie in two different sizes. Why they are two different sizes is a mystery, as well as if the silhouettes are supposed to be literal representations of their classes. The only "evidence" that they could be all Connies is that the silhouette for the Excelsior is the actual Excelsior and not another Connie.
-------------------- "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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
