Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Older Okuda Interview

This is topic Older Okuda Interview in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/931.html

Posted by Capt Sharpe on November 01, 2000 03:53 AM:

In a UK TNG Magazine published by Marvel back in Sept 1991 (issue 20) there is an interview with Okuda set around the production time of TNG Season 4. Several of the pictures with the article are Okudagrams from the Ent-D. But they tend to conflict with some stuff excepted as Canon today. For example, the USS Trieste is listed as Yosemite Class NCC-37124...but other places list the Trieste as Merced Class. It also shows a dedication plaque for the Tsiolkovski which states the Oberth Class ship was launched on Stardate 40291.7 - Isn't that a bit late to have a Reg of 53911? And of course, it also lists the construction yard as Baikonur, USSR *lol*

The question is, how canon do we consider the Okuda diagrams to be?

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

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 01, 2000 07:49 AM:

quote:
It also shows a dedication plaque for the Tsiolkovski

Great. I hope you have this issue and can scan the plaque and the okudagrams. This would be the evidence that these ships are Oberth-class-vessels.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on November 01, 2000 08:09 AM:

I knew those Commie bastards were up to no good. Trying to make us believe the Soviet Union collapsed, waiting for us to put our guard down.

Seriously though, I like that they put those in-jokes such as the USSR in dedication plaques and LCARS displays. It shows that they have a sense of humor and enjoy their work.

------------------
Calvin: "Isn't that weird?? If computers can think, what will people be better at than machines?"
Hobbes: "Irrational behavior."
This post is sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on November 01, 2000 09:37 AM:

Erm... Wasn't the Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque in Russian, Cyrillic alphabet and all?

------------------
"Yeah...apparently Sizer is very hard to say, so they replace it with 'Is Mr. Caeser home?'
Sometimes I'll say that no, he has, in fact, passed away.
'My apologies.'
'Oh, that's ok, I'm over it. Brutus is still a wreck though.'
Then I hang up."
-Simon Sizer on telemarketers, 1-Nov-2000

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 01, 2000 09:58 AM:

According to Mike Okuda only the shipname was in Cyrillic.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited November 01, 2000).]

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 01, 2000 10:15 AM:

If there is a Yosemite class, then it'd have to be pretty old, since the USS Yosemite NCC-19002, Oberth class (clearly seen on screen, and canon) would be rather old in itself. I still want to see photos first.

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 01, 2000 07:50 PM:

There is canonical evidence that Star Fleet starships being built in the 2360's had registries in the 50000 to 60000 block. So, the commissioning date of the U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky is not unreasonable.

As for the Yosemite Class, I tend to believe that, as in the case with other ships in TNG, that the U.S.S. Yosemite seen in "Realm of Fear" may have been originally another ship than what is seen on tv. However, budgetary concerns forced the change and Mr. Okuda had to change the class of the U.S.S. Trieste.

When I heard that CGI is being used in Star Trek, I had hoped to see a variety of classes, including those mentioned by Mr.Okuda. However, there is very little variety in the Federation designs. And a great deal of variety in non-Federation designs week to week. This is something that I don't understand. If the artist can create a new alien ship, why can't the artist create a new Star Fleet ship? Are there limitations imposed by Paramount on the variety of designs that can be made for the Star Fleet ships?

Returning to thread, this information of the dedication plates and the okudagram could be found in volume 16 of the ST: TNG magazine, published by Starlog many years ago.

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 01, 2000 08:32 PM:

quote:
Returning to thread, this information of the dedication plates and the okudagram could be found in volume 16 of the ST: TNG magazine, published by Starlog many years ago.

Do you have this volume?

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on November 01, 2000 08:35 PM:

Actually, I'm more worried about Starfleet ships having too much variety. Why on Earth do they need so many different variants of starships when they all do the same thing anyway? It would make sense if there were dedicated fast attack ships with "missile" weapons, lumbering giants with "guns" and "armor", transports with little or no armament but lots of cargo space... Instead, most ships carry an identical selection of phasers and torpedoes, and whenever there are differences, they do not translate into differences in the operational role of the vessel.

What CGI could do would be to give us Starfleet tugs, tankers, tenders, waste collection barges - ships that could not be built in model form because they would only be used once or twice per an entire TV series, and would not be useful as "hero" vessels. But no, all we get is "cool" ships like the ST:FC selection.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on November 01, 2000 11:28 PM:

I have to agree with Timo, I would also like to see more of the support ships of Starfleet. There is a refueling ship mentioned in ST:TNG tech manual for instance. That would have been interesting to see.

------------------
"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 Harry (Member # 265) on November 02, 2000 04:52 AM:

*sigh*. Why is it The Powers That Be always see the 'general public' as a bunch of brainless sheep just accepting and swallowing everything they give us..

------------------
"Dynamics is like playing hockey with a flexible hockey stick"
-My Physics teacher
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on November 02, 2000 03:27 PM:

Do you honestly believe that?

------------------
love's function is to fabricate unknownnness
--
E. E. Cummings
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! And party everyday.

Posted by Capt Sharpe on November 02, 2000 10:46 PM:

http://www.geocities.com/capt_hornet/plaque.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/capt_hornet/yosemite.jpg

Those are the links to the Ded Plaque and the 15 starship list which includes a Yosemite Class Trieste instead of a Merced Class Trieste.

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 02, 2000 11:38 PM:

Here's another variant of the 15-ships-okudagram from Captain's Chair http://www.8ung.at/fitz/ships/display8.gif

IMO the Trieste is a Yosemite-class-ship. I think the Captain's Chair-okudagram was changed to confirm what the Encyclopedia says about the Trieste.

So we have just canon evidence for Yosemite and no canon evidence for Merced.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited November 03, 2000).]

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 02, 2000 11:49 PM:

Please look at the registry of the U.S.S. Zhukov.

This starship has the registry of NCC-62136.

Question, which registry is accurate?
I say the number 62136 is accurate for the fourth year. This registry is on the model and the chart.

Later, Mr. Okuda changed the registry of the U.S.S. Zhukov.

With the information present in the chart, can we make a guess as to when this chart appeared in the fourth year?

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 03, 2000 03:10 AM:

Was there anything onscreen which supports NCC-26136?

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 03, 2000 11:43 AM:

Hmmm...change Merced over the Yosemite class or not? Anyone want to e-mail Okuda and ask him about this (Okuda is a helluva man to put up with all these questions

)

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 03, 2000 12:29 PM:

Aha! Just realized I had this! I have a shot of the ACTUAL Okudagram of the Starship Status Screen. Unfortunatly, the picture is very small, and the Okudagram doesn't take up the entire picture, so it's even smaller. Barely ledgable, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful! As you can see in the picture, I drew a red box around the entry for USS Trieste. In green I have a box going from the class name of the USS Trieste to those of the USS Merrimac and USS Monitor, both Nebula class. Now, notice the width of the word NEBULA on there and the class name for the Trieste. Same width, right? Now look at the picture of the Starship Status Screen that Capt Sharpe posted. The width of the word YOSEMITE is much wider then NEBULA. Therefore, since even though it is not readable, the class for the USS Trieste appears to only be 6 letters long, and cannot be Yosemite class!

Therefore, the picture in the magazine must have been one of Okuda's pre-production ideas for the Okudagram before he actually made it, and it was changed from Yosemite to Merced then. And this screen is canon (is was from the Mission Ops area at the back of the bridge of the E-D), the class us canon!

Score 1 for The359...

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

[This message has been edited by The359 (edited November 03, 2000).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on November 03, 2000 06:33 PM:

And it looks like the Zhukov just might say "62", though it's really hard to tell. It just seems like the first digit is more "solid" than the second.

And it looks like we have a "K.E. Tsiopkovskiy" on our hands, too. Now, granted, I don't really read Cyrillic, but there is a difference between 'l' and 'p', and I'm fairly certain that what they have there would actually be a 'p'. Anyway, even if we write that off as a typo, we still have "K.E." instead of "USS", and the fact that the name actually ends in "iy". Since the name on the outside of the ship was never seen, should we use this spelling instead? And I assume "K.E." are Tsiolkovskiy's initials (the 'K' is, anyway). Does this make the ship actually the USS K.E. Tsiolkovskiy, or should "K.E." be presumed to be some sort of alternative to "USS"?

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited November 04, 2000).]

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on November 03, 2000 06:57 PM:

Yeah, his name was Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky. Unfortunately, I DO read Cyrillic & that's not an E they used. That's a Z.

------------------
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much."

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 03, 2000 07:01 PM:

Weren't there some ships from the pre-Federation ship list in "Up The Long Ladder" that started with K.E.? Maybe K.E. is the Russian equvilant of HMS or USS...

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 03, 2000 07:49 PM:

THE359
What episode is the okudagram in?
I agree with you that the class of the U.S.S. Trieste is Merced Class.

Also, if this okudagram can be seen, then the registry of the U.S.S. Zhukov is canonically NCC-62136. (Love to have a DVD of this unnamed episode. Imagine the clarity.)

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 03, 2000 09:11 PM:

quote:
Also, if this okudagram can be seen, then the registry of the U.S.S. Zhukov is canonically NCC-62136.

Why? Now I'm sure that
this is the canon one. And it says 26xxx.

And here Okuda's answer about this.

quote:
Thanks for the note. That stuff is filed away at the moment, so I'm afraid I
can't give you any insight into that particular question. Sorry.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited November 04, 2000).]

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on November 03, 2000 10:13 PM:

quote:
Do you honestly believe that?

No, I just had a hard day

(Well, *sometimes* it looks like TPTB think that way)

------------------
"Dynamics is like playing hockey with a flexible hockey stick"
-My Physics teacher
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on November 04, 2000 08:36 AM:

Shik: Ah... Thanks. That is a 'z'. I should have looked over the entire alphabet before picking the 'e' that kinda almost looks like the 'z'... :-)

So... The KZ Tsiolkovskiy... Hm...

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 04, 2000 09:17 AM:

There is no episode listed for the Okudagram. If you want to see it better, it's in the official 30th Anniversary magazine that Paramount put out.

As for the Zhukov, I've tried as hard as I could by looking at it to see if it's 26 or 62, but it's just too hard to read. Remember, there is a large version of this ship list in the E-D's observation lounge in nearly every episode. If we can get a screenshot of that it would probably have better clues.

This reminds me of the ship list in Star Trek VI. It had nearly the same amount of ships (plus classes attached to it). Too bad we don't have close-ups of that one.

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 04, 2000 07:11 PM:

What type of filing system is Mr. Okuda referring to?

Now the ship list in the sixth movie.
I have heard claims that the list is readable or not readable. Another claim-the list presents no class information. What are the facts, if any?

Furthermore, a question. If Mr. Okuda used the Concordance which had the list of ships from the sixth movie and Mr. Okuda knew that fans would buy the book, why didn't he include the ships in the encyclopedias?

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 04, 2000 09:03 PM:

quote:
What type of filing system is Mr. Okuda referring to?

Don't know.

quote:
Now the ship list in the sixth movie.

Where? On the Operation Retrieve-Chart? Maybe something is readable on the DVD.

quote:
Another claim-the list presents no class information. What are the facts, if any?

IIRC name and NCC, but where does the class of the Eagle come from?

quote:
Concordance which had the list of ships from the sixth movie

A textlist or a picture of the list?

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on November 04, 2000 11:33 PM:

I think the class is based on the fact that the silhouettes on the operation diagram all appear to be refit Constitutions.

------------------
Cluck cluck jibber jibber, my old man's a mushroom etc.

Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on November 05, 2000 02:53 AM:

it was a textlist

------------------
"Life sucks, then you die"

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on November 05, 2000 03:07 AM:

It could have been just a general silouette for a Starfleet ship, rather than referring to it's actual class.

Personally, I don't believe that there are any other refit-constitutions out there. Sure, we can see bucket loads of Ambassador's, original constitutions, Excelsior's, and Galaxy's, but we're only allowed to see ONE refit-constitution? Yeesh.

------------------
"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move." - Spike, BtVS

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on November 05, 2000 04:25 AM:

Experimental Refit?

------------------
Yep

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 05, 2000 04:51 AM:

quote:
it was a textlist

I have the following ships:

USS Ahwahnee NCC-2048
USS Constellation NCC-1974
USS Eagle NCC-956
USS Emden NCC-1856
USS Endeavour NCC-1895
USS Helin NCC-1692
USS John Muir NCC-1732
USS Kongo NCC-1710
USS Korolev NCC-2014
USS Lantree NCC-1837
USS Oberth NCC-602
USS Potemkin NCC-1711 or 1675 (I prefer the first one)
USS Republic NCC-1371
USS Scovil NCC-1598
USS Springfield NCC-1963
USS Whorfin NCC-1024

Did I forget a ship?

quote:
but we're only allowed to see ONE refit-constitution

Three, the E-Nil, the E-A and the Connie in BoBW.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited November 05, 2000).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on November 05, 2000 10:20 AM:

Liam: Wasn't there a second Constitution-II in the Spacedock in one of the movies?

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on November 05, 2000 10:57 AM:

In the revised version of the STNG Companion, it states in the Nakes Now episode that the Tsvolsky did have a dedication plaque but it was sent to the home city where Tscolsky was born.

------------------
Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 06, 2000 11:40 AM:

Actually, the ship chart I was referring too was the one on the Enterprise-A's bridge, which could be seen throughout Star Trek VI, yet not close enough to be readable by my recollection. It had ship name, then registry number, then class. The class part would be the important one...

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on November 06, 2000 01:18 PM:

"...Tsvolsky....Tscolsky..."

Well, out of a possible 11 correct letters for each try, you scored a 7 and 6 respectively.

However, the 'c' in the second attempt warrants a -1, and the 'ol' between the 'v' and 'sky' in the first one nabs you a -2. Without being so mean as to take away marks for length, you scored a 10 out of 22.

That's an F.

------------------
Equality, Cooperation & Benevolence.

Vote Communist Party of America 2000.

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 06, 2000 08:31 PM:

THE359
After reading your last reply, I feel the frustration that I often have when this topic arises.
Yes
1. the chart is on the bridge.
2. the chart has the following information-ship names, classes, and registries.
3. the chart is readable enough that the above information can be gained.
No
1. No difference.
2. the chart has the ship names and registries.
3. the chart is not readable.

Which is it?
And further, where is this chart located on the bridge? In operations, perhaps? I remember this question being asked before with no answer. I have seen the movie many times and have never been able to see the chart.
If the chart is unreadable, then how can you or anyone know what is on the chart?

In my opinion, present or ask someone to present the information with evidence. Then let everyone decide.

I return to a question. Why doesn't Mr. Okuda present these ships in the encyclopedia?

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited November 07, 2000).]

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on November 06, 2000 11:58 PM:

quote:
If the chart is unreadable, then how can you or anyone know what is on the chart?

Maybe Bjo Timble, writer of the ST Concordance, had access to the list.

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited November 07, 2000).]

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on November 07, 2000 04:27 AM:

FITZ
I think the same thing. Bjo Trimble did have access to the first series sets.

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

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on November 07, 2000 04:46 AM:

I wish someone would print a complete book of Okudagrams

------------------
"Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on November 07, 2000 09:15 AM:

The okudagram on the bridge of the Enterprise-A is repeated at nearly every station around the circumference of the bridge. I believe it can be most clearly seen whenever we get close up shots of Uhura, it's usually over her shoulder. I know it's a ship chart because we are close enough to tell that it is set up similar to the TNG ship list, and even the fact that the list says USS before every name can be made out. The only ship I can pretty much confirm as being on the list is USS Constellation NX-1974, Constellation class, because 1) This is the only registry number that is shortened by being NX instead of NCC) and 2) the class name is extremly long. As for the rest, I dunno, I could get out my ST6 widescreen and look for all the shots of this list, see what I can get.

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

(discussion with fellow classmate, 9/5/00)

Mustang Class Starship Development Project

[This message has been edited by The359 (edited November 07, 2000).]