Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Ships of "Court-Martial"

This is topic Ships of "Court-Martial" in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/661.html

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

Chapter 1, 001.39, on the DVD of this
episode the ship list can be seen clearly.
The registries are:
NCC-1708
NCC-1831
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1664
NCC-1697
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700

A majority of these ship's registries can be identified with known ships.
NCC-1831 USS Intrepid
NCC-1703 USS Hood
NCC-1672 USS Exeter
NCC-1664 USS Excalibur
NCC-1697 USS Essex
NCC-1701 USS Enterprise
NCC-1700 USS Constitution

The other three are unidentified.

An idea
In the late 2250's or early 2260's, the Miranda Class starship is commissioned. One of the first ships of this class is the USS Lantree NCC-1837. She served Starfleet for over a hundred years when she is destroyed by the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D. At this point of her career, she is downrated to a Class 6 carrier.

I understand that the USS Carolina is identified as a Daedalus Class starship in the Omnipedia because of her presumed function-that of a freighter.
An interpretation of this vessel's career based on Mr. Okuda's facts. She is commissioned in the 2160's and serves to 2196 when her class is retired. Decades later, she is refitted to the position of a freighter and is serving Starfleet in that capacity in 2266. When viewed with the USS Lantree's career and the perceived facts of the Daedalus Class, this may make sense.
However, a major issue arises. Why would a freighter patrol the Neutral Zone? This is the stated position of this ship in "Friday's Child".

Based on the available evidence now at hand, I believe the USS Carolina could be a Miranda Class starship possibly with one of the registries mentioned above. (The registry of the USS Miranda is not known.) She is not identified as a Constitution Class starship in the Making of Star Trek.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited March 04, 2000).]

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

NCC-1708 I believe was supposed to be NCC-1709 for the USS Lexington, or vice-versa.

Also, the USS Intrepid should be NCC-1631, not NCC-1831. It's possible that there are two seperate ships, or that the Encyclopedia was right all along, and USS Intrepid should have been NCC-1831.

And, are you sure that is the entire list? Because, I recall there being an NCC-1665, NCC-1667, NCC-1705, and NCC-1710 (which belongs to USS Kongo)

------------------
"The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey

The 359 Webpage

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

This is the complete list. USS Intrepid is NCC-1831.

The other registries come from a time when dvds were not available and the quality of the screen capture varied.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Are you absolutely certain it says 1831 on screen? I mean, all the other numbers are 16xx and 17xx, and the Encyclopedia repeatedly suggests that the Intrepid was NCC-1631, only saying 1831 once.

------------------
"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-They Might Be Giants, "Your Racist Friend"

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

I reviewed the scene in question repeatedly. I will modified my statements. The first registry is NCC-1709, not NCC-1708. As for the registry NCC-1831, I stand by my original position. The second number is clearly a eight with the "sides" closed and a line appearing midway connecting the "sides". Further, the sixes have a small separation on the right hand side which is missing from the NCC-1831. This refutes the encyclopedia. If others have the dvd, please check for the accuracy of my statements.

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

So regardless of what ship names we assign to these registries, it would seem that 1800-range registries were in use in Starfleet in the mid-2260s. That gives at least some support to the idea that the Mirandas we see could be refitted versions of TOS era designs...

Interesting how there are five numbers in the "traditional" Constitution range, a bit over 1700, four numbers just below that, and one number in the 1800s. The curiously small range of the numbers makes one think that there is something to the concept that these all are ships of the same class.

Then again, the small range of numbers might be because ships of roughly similar design age are likely to enter a period of refitting and upgrading at the same time. But the Enterprise is on that list as well - and she was only in for random repairs, not scheduled refitting.

Also, it's worth noting that a solid brass plate on the wall probably isn't the likeliest way to list ships currently docked. The list would have to be about something that ties together all those ships more or less permanently.

What WAS that brass plate about? Was there any header, any explanation of the contents? Does Frank have a screencap?

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Maybe it was a computer monitor made to look like a brass plate. Maybe it was one of those screen savers that takes what's already on the screen and does stuff to it. :-)

------------------
Homer: "I can see what's happening. They did it to Jesus, and now they're doing it to me."
Marge: "Are you comparing yourself to our lord?!"
Homer: "Well, in bowling ability..."
-The Simpsons

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I'll try getting an image if I get the DVD, which I hope to do.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me

Posted by Laz1701 on :

In tech fandom, classes such as the Coventry and Surya were direct precursors of the Miranda. So the tech fandom timeline goes, these were refitted as Avenger class, and Avenger class ships were refitted as Miranda.

------------------
The Starship Encyclopedia

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Of course, in actual Trek, they don't seem to do this, meaning that they would all be called Miranda.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

But since the Surya NCCs are higher than those of the Miranda class Lantree, one could easily say that there was a TOS-style Miranda class that preceded the Surya class, and both of these (sub)classes were subsequently refitted to a Reliant-style configuration, including the Avenger and Cyane and Endurance and whatnot subclasses.

Since USS Miranda would be the most senior of the ships (at NCC-1833, probably, so as not to contradict the other fanfic regos), Starfleet would pull the same trick they did with the refitted Constitutions, i.e. call all the modernized subclasses by the common name Miranda.

Of course, one could counter-argue that the Constitution isn't necessarily the oldest ship in the Constitution class (since she isn't the lowest-numbered), so the Miranda need not be, either. But I feel it would be simplest to assume that USS Miranda, NX-1833, already existed during TOS...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Of course, one could also argue that the Constitution must be the lowest-numbered of its class, and, hence, there was a predecessor to the 1700. I still don't see why everyone finds that such a difficult idea to accept...

Posted by Dane Simri (Member # 272) on :

If there was a pre-TOS-era Miranda counterpart, I bet it looked just like Baloo's "Pre-Oberth Research Frigate" in the DA&C Forum.

------------------
Dane

"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

The Constitution has 1700. Why do other Constitution-Class-ships have lower numbers? The Starfleet Technical Manual gives numbers from 1700 to 1711 for the Constitution-Class. This sounds much better.

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

It sounds better, but isn't, because the Technical Manual is not canon, and has been contradicted many, many times.

------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

If the 16**-numbers are right, are these ships upgrades of other classes? And when "yes" what classes? Baton Rouge-Class or something other? Has anyone information about the Baton Rouge-Class?

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

There is no canon Baton Rouge Class, so I couldn't help ya

As for why there are lower registries, simple, the USS Constitution NX-900 or so, which some people seem to deny for one reason or another. The USS Constitution NCC-1700 is merely the 2nd ship to bear the name in that class.

------------------
"The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey

The 359 Webpage

[This message has been edited by The359 (edited March 17, 2000).]

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

The problem with that is that it's never been confirmed or denied that NCC-1700 was in fact the class ship or not. It is only assumed to be because of the even number, it bears the name Constitution (which the class name has been confirmed on screen while before it was only conjectural), and is the closest numbered ship to the Enterprise.

To summarize, there is no definite answer to why a few Constitution class ships are lower than 1700.

------------------
7 alarm clock: "Do not touch me."
Dilbert: "Then how do I turn you off?"
7: "Believe me, I am plenty turned off."

Posted by Laz1701 on :

Regarding upgrades from other classes, tech fandom postulates that both the Constellation (NCC-1017) and the Republic (NCC-1371) were upgraded to Constitution specs from Archon class.

Archon Class

------------------
The Starship Encyclopedia

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

That's nonsense. If you made that ship into a Constitution, what would even be left of the original? You'd essentially be building a new ship. That's not an upgrade.

------------------
"To make the merry-go-round go faster, so that everyone needs to hang on tighter, just to keep from being thrown to the wolves."
-They Might Be Giants, "They Might Be Giants"

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

Is the Archon-Class canon or not. It doesn't appear in Star Trek, does it?

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

go to the starship names thread in this section to see my explanation on registries, it explains away the early registries for constitution class and even that early ambassador etc.

Andrew

------------------
"Who wouldn't be the one you love
Who wouldn't stand inside your love." - Stand Inside Your Love, The Smashing Pumpkins

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

The "Pacificnet-Ship-Library" is very good. But some links to ship-classes don't work. Will these classes go online in the future? It gives only one ship of a class. Where can I get a list with all ships of a class?

------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."

Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :

The Archon-class is NOT canon. Personally, I think one should post which classes are not canon when you are a webmaster, so as to help us ignorants :-)

------------------
"The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity�s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something."
Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"

Posted by Laz1701 on :

It may be nonsense, but *I* didn't come up with it. I'm just passing along what tech fandom postulates.

As for the ships on my site which bring up the "Temporarily Offline" graphic, these are ships I intend to add to the site but which I haven't yet drawn. Eventually, all of these will be added, but in the meantime, their names linked to the "Temporarily Offline" graphic are there as placeholders.

Of course, by the time I add them all to the site, there'll be new ships I'll have to draw.

------------------
The Starship Encyclopedia

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

The Archon class as such has a dubious history. Was it a SFB creation, or FASA? In any case, USS Archon of TOS "Return of the Archons" was supposed to be the class ship of this class, which is both an unnecessary coincidence and not good timeline-wise. Ditto for the Horizon class.

But IIRC, the Horizon/Archon classes were never graphically represented in the original material - the funny picture with rescaled Daedalus components probably isn't true to the original intentions of the people who wrote the text. The Archon class could have existed, perhaps with a secondary hull identical to that of the later Constitutions but with slightly different engines, and with a flat sphere instead of a saucer as the primary hull. She'd still meet the requirements of the original text, but would be an acceptable predecessor for the Constitutions.

Just say that the TOS USS Archon was really of Daedalus class, and the Archon class was created to honor that ship (but the new USS Archon never did anything very significant). Then the noncanon and canon timelines will intermix just fine.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

The Baton Rouge class was one of the ships designed by Rick Sternbach for the "Spaceflight Chronology" published around 1980. It was the direct predecessor of the Constitution class. Definitely noncanon.

------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum