Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
My newly-revised shiplist
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [b] Um, no. There is an Excelsior Class variant shown on page 156, but I see nothing to suggest that it is the [i]Centaur[/i]. It lacks numerous [i]Centaur[/i] features, most notably the [i]Centaur[/i]'s many nutsacks hanging under the saucer. I also see nothing to suggest the oversized Miranda Class torpedo launcher thingy . . . as far as can be seen from the pic in the DS9TM, the Excelsior Class variant referred to is just a saucer, pylons, and nacelles.[/QUOTE][/b] Yes, the schematic in the book is incorrect, as are *all* the kitbash schematics in the book. (See the horrendously incorrect [i]Curry[/i] schematic? And the Intrepid/Constitution, which supposedly represents the Voyager-prototype study model? IIRC, the Yeager-class pic is off a little, too. The only possible exception is the Connie-variant, which we so far have not been able to compare with a model or screenshot.) The pic is *obviously* supposed to represent the [i]Centaur[/i], and in fact the very same illustration appears in the [i]Encyclopedia[/i] under the entry "[b]Centaur, U.S.S.[/b]" [QUOTE][b]Harper's Weekly, the New York Herald, and Quarterly Review subscribe to the Merrimac spelling. Also, every single lithograph from that era at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/merimak2.htm (the official U.S. Navy site) subscribes to the spelling Merrimac (except for the last, for which it is impossible to tell), and these were period pieces. Of course, the site itself argues for the Merrimack spelling, but offers no evidence to support this view. Similarly, most sites which suggest that the ship was named after the river Merrimack (as opposed to the valley known as Merrimac) make no evidenciary claims. I say, screw 'em.[/b][/QUOTE]It has been well-established (Okuda states it in the [i]Encyclopedia[/i]) that "[i]this ship was named in honor of the vessel that became the noted iron-clad warship [/i]C.S.S. Virginia[i], that fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War.[/i]" The name of that ship was [i]MERRIMACK[/i]. During the time period and the years since, it has been frequently mis-spelled, even at times in official Navy channels. However, the correct spelling is [i]MERRIMACK[/i]. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it gets understood. [QUOTE][b]I can't imagine the logic of changing the registry but keeping the name, from the perspective of the model-builders, unless they were just lazy that day.[/QUOTE][/b] Well, what happened (again, this is as yet unconfirmed, but is widely accepted) is this: When VGR was in it's early pre-production stages, Rick Sternbach built [b][URL=http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/other/voy-proto1.jpg]this[/URL][/b] study model as a prototype for what the new ship was going to look like. The registry is lower because at the time, the plan was for [i]Voyager[/i] to be an older ship that had been commissioned made a name for itself during the Cardassian War. This idea (and the design) was later scrapped in favor of a newer vessel. But, the theory goes, this study-model was then used as one of the background ships in DS9 along with the kitbashes like the [i]Curry[/i], [i]Centaur[/i], and Yeager-class. [QUOTE][b]Um, no. Star Trek V is contrary to that notion, showing an Enterprise which has been finished in something of a rush.[/QUOTE][/b] I can't believe how much I hear this. Why is STV contrary to that notion? The ship had was in bad shape because the [i]Yorktown[/i] had just had its ass kicked by the Probe before limping (or being towed) back into dock. [QUOTE][b]Further, there is no evidence in Star Trek IV that any vessel has been renamed Enterprise, or, if so, what vessel that was. As far as renaming is concerned, it might as well be Shane Johnson's U.S.S. Ti-Ho, NCC-1798.[/QUOTE][/b] So, they built an entirely new ship in the few days (perhaps even hours, though it is more likely days, since Gilian had time to find an assignment on a science vessel...) that comprised the last 10 minutes of the film? Damn, that's fast. Scotty would be amazed... :rolleyes: Having it be the [i]Yorktown[/i] was Gene's suggestion and has since been backed by all official reference materials and has been recognized by TPTB. Johnson pulled the [i]Ti-Ho[/i] from one of two places: thin air or his ass. ;) [QUOTE][b]"19. NCC-4000 comes from a display on the [i]Enterprise[/i] bridge in STIII." The website lists it as being from Star Trek II.[/b][/QUOTE]Sorry. I think the display actually appeared in both films along w/the other Tech Manual screens. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3