posted
I have heard a number of times from many different sources that "Explorer" was a type of ship, just as "Battleship" or "Destroyer".
I wonder. Might it not be that "Explorer" could be a general type of vessel, rather like "Warship"? A warship can perform many other duties, but its primary reason for existence is to deliver mayhem.
Perpaps an explorer is any vessel with a primary mission in support of exploration, such as a pathfinder vessel (Stargazer: preliminary survey), exploration vessel (Galaxy: goes in behind the survey vessel and examines likely star systems in detail), or a science vessel (Oberth: detailed study of a specific planet or phenomenon).
Comments?
--Baloo
------------------ Don't call me a Yank. I prefer to be referred to as a "Pull with a Sudden Movement".
posted
*unplugs Frank for the duration of this thread*
The TNG and DS9 TMs seem to indicate that in the 24th century, large, high-powered cushy starships that inhabit the outer regions of the Federation are called "Explorers" the same way the smaller more utilitarians vessels that cruise the inner Fed worlds are called "Cruisers". The Federation would never designate anything as a Warship. Even the Defiant is an escort.
My theory is that the smaller, single-purpose ships carry names based on their job (Surveyor, Tender, Tanker, Transport etc.) while the bigger multipurpose ships use names that include size and power as well as job description.
posted
No, beacuse there's no such thing as a 'peace time designation'. There are just designations and the designation for a very large, multi-purpose, starship just happens to be Explorer. I really don't see why people have so many problems with the concept.
posted
I only have a problem w/ everyone's thinking that Starfleet is required to use terms exactly as used on Earth in the late twentieth century. If that be the case, I guess most of the occurences of the word "energy" on the show need to be disregarded...
------------------ "I prefer much more diplomatic ways of pissing people off." -a certain anonymous administrator
posted
And that's why I use 20th century terms to describe the ships on my site.
My audience is not some hypothetical 23d or 24th century tourist. It's people from Earth (unless the internet is even stranger than it appears to be ). Since my audience is accustomed to 20th terminology, I use recognizable terms. Where I want to use jargon, I try to put it in a context where the reader can determine the probable meaning even when he is not completely familiar with Star Trek.
That's why very few of the ships I make (none anymore) are "escorts". In current, easily understood usage, an escort escorts another vessel. That's not hard to understand, but the size and capability of vessels that escort varies immensely, from teeny little buggers the size of a PT boat to large destroyer-sized vessels just short of cruiser proportions.
Why invent a new terminology? If you want to give a futuristic "feel" to starship terminology, make it recognizable and use unfamiliar terms like spices. Everyone likes a little salt and pepper, but nobody longs to eat a bowl full of either.
--Baloo
------------------ Warning: There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know nothing about.
posted
I would say that it's safe to assume that your audience is used to Trek terminology. After all you are writing for people with some interest in Trek, aren't you? But is it safe to assume that your audience has any familiarity at all with modern naval terminology?
). Since my audience is accustomed to 20th terminology, I use recognizable terms. Where I want to use jargon, I try to put it in a context where the reader can determine the probable meaning even when he is not completely familiar with Star Trek.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
