Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Non-Canon List

This is topic Non-Canon List in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1326.html

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :

I'm sure this list will be screamed at, but since the third Encyclopedia (2.5) didn't have a shiplist, I thought I'd make one on the ships whose class we don't know and could have been mentioned in a shiplist. Now this is non-canon, unofficial, and just what I think the classes and registries of these ships are until we get another shiplist.

USS Billings
Nebula
NCC-62143
"Night"

USS Centaur
Centaur
NCC-42043
"A Time to Stand"

USS Cortez
Excelsior
NCC-41889
"Favor the Bold"

USS Destiny
Akira
NCC-77652
"Shadows and Symbols"

USS Intrepid
Intrepid
NCC-73535
"In the Flesh"

USS Musashi
Akira
NCC-70325
"Treachery, Faith, and the Great River"

USS Olympia
Oberth
NCC-52144
"The Sound of Her Voice"

USS Saratoga
Steamrunner
NCC-62103
"Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night"

USS Sarek
Miranda
NCC-58871
"Sacrifice of Angels"

USS Sentinel
Saber
NCC-63347
"Treachery, Faith, and the Great River"

USS Ticonderoga
Excelsior
NCC-42618
"Star Trek: Insurrection"

USS Veracruz
Sovereign
NCC-78815
"The Siege of AR-558"

Posted by Mr. Christopher (Member # 71) on :

quote:
USS Sarek
Miranda
NCC-58871
"Sacrifice of Angels"

That's a ridiculously high registry for a Miranda.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Mr. Christopher ]

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Trust me, Mr. C: With Mirandas, anyhting is possible...

The third Saratoga a steamrunner, eh? Seems like they had a tradition of naming Mirandas after it. Then again, they didn't have much luck with that...

I don't think the Veracruz would be a Sovvie. Don't they reserve those only for the movies?

BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.

An interesting list. I hope we actually get some of this kind of information in the (hopefully) forthcoming Encyc update.

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

quote:
BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.

Yes, and Miranda-class vessels are actually Constitutions. That's ridiculous.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :

Mr. Christopher--I agree it is a high registry, but like the Mighty Mim says, we've seen it all with the Miranda class. Perhaps it should be NCC-38871, or a bit lower. Somehow, though, whenever I get a ship name, I think of a class for it. I just thought of Sovereign for the Veracruz. I wish the creators wouldv'e put some Sovereigns or Intrepids in some DS9 fight sequences. The DS9 Technical Manual said that Sovereigns can dock at the pylons, but we haven't seen any do it.

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

OOo. What page was that on, General? I missed it.

And spikey, I've already resolved not to get caught up in any more arguments about that Technical Manual, so quit trolling.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

Never mind, General. I found it. It's page 54.

Is the Sovvie the biggest thing the Feds have got?

Hey, it says that only vessels under 325 meters are protected by the station's shield envelope. Guess if you're anything bigger than a Connie refit, you'd better watch yer caboose!

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :

quote:
BTW, the Centaur has an official class designation. It's Excelsior. (A Variant, of course, but an Excelsior nonetheless.) From the DS9 Technical Manual.

When one usually speaks of variants, they are referring to vessels which share similar to exact designs, with only minor changes to either the interior or exterior. Examples:

Enterprise-A = variant model seen in Leah Brahms' office.
Excelsior = Enterprise-B
Reliant = Lantree = Saratoga
Hermes = Saladin
Equinox = Rhode Island
Enterprise-D = Galaxy class ships in DS9

(the only instance where this does not work is the Bozeman, but there's a reason for that).

That said, the Centaur is not an Excelsior. The TM may state that it is a variant, but I disagree. Just as Spike said, the rearrangement of parts makes the Centaur as different from the Excelsior as the Constitution was from the Miranda. The writers of the TM didn't give the kitbashed ships class designations because they didn't really care. The "rearrangement of parts for quick entry into the war" was just BS.

quote:
I've already resolved not to get caught up in any more arguments about that Technical Manual, so quit trolling.

You're the one who brought the TM up in the first place to support your argument.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :

There's nothing wrong with a radical re-arrangement being called a variant, IMHO, and as everyone knows I always try to go with the official publications, but to each his own.

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :

I have seen the battle sequence where the starships Sitak and Majestic were being destroyed. The starship Majestic had a registry-NCC-31860. Her sister ship had no registry.

Responding to the few comments that I have heard on earlier threads, Mr. Okuda was feeling very unhappy either with the encyclopedia or the fans' reactions, or both. The last encyclopedia 'variation' may be the final one.

I am of the opinion that the encyclopedia and the technical manuals should have been done by a fan who had assistance from the staff, like the Concordance of Bjo Trimble in the early 1970's. I think asking Mr. Okuda or Mr. Sternbach to do these works was way over the top. The works reflect that they didn't have the time to properly research their works, annotate their research findings, and proofread the finished work for mistakes and omissions.

And I think what helped Ms. Trimble in her research, which is sorely lacking in modern Trek, is that the producers respected their fans and were appreciative to their fans who devotedly and fervently supported Star Trek.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

quote:
I have seen the battle sequence where the starships Sitak and Majestic were being destroyed. The starship Majestic had a registry-NCC-31860. Her sister ship had no registry.

IIRC Foundation Imaging did these scenes. Maybe Mojo can help us here.

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :

Sorry about that wait for the TM thing, Mim. I was off checking my e-mail. I hope, targetemployee and everyone else, that another encyclopedia does come out, so we can get a list like this. And I hope that ship book coming out in winter is good, and not contradicting of everything ever talked about on the Starships & Technology Forum.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"IIRC Foundation Imaging did these scenes. Maybe Mojo can help us here."

I dunno. I don't think he means that he can't read the registry. I think it means it wasn't there. It was a trend that grew as DS9 went along. Ships started to lose all their external signage. It's not like the Odessey, which just had the hardest to read signage of all (although, for some of the resued Enterprise shots from Emissary, the registry is missing, as if they'd simply removed it with photoshop from the existing shot); by Call to Arms, loads of ships were flying around willy nilly without any way of telling what they are.

Considering the number of CGI ships being thrown about, I guess it was a case of most ships having no registry, or the same registry. And can you imagine the nightmare we'd have if every Excelsior in SofA was called (for example) the Arseface?

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :

I agree. How hard would it be to think of a name and regisrty for every ship we had a close up of? They did it in "Tears of the Prophets," yes, but that was the only time on a large scale and it was a season finale, which they had a bigger budget for.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

And yet, the São Paulo...

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :

As can be seen in this photo, the Miranda in the distance has no registry. This is the USS Sitak.

Photo courtesy of Alidar Jarok's site.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

. . . and apart from the Defiant, it's about the only ship we do see that has any markings in that battle. In SofA or its re-use as stock footage in "WYLB."

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

You mean the ship in the foreground, not the distance, right Lee? Is that the same ship that gets the front of it's saucer blown off and flies right by the camera? If it was THAT extreme a close-up (and considering how big the registry is on Miranda's compared to Galaxies and what-not), they might have stuck it on for that shot.

Those are the CGI models, aren't they? I've only just noticed, but haven't they got the movie logo on their nacelles? Shouldn't they (at least), have the TNG one (considering that the Lakota had the current Defiant/Voyager/Ent-E one, age doesn't seem to matter much)?

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

They do have the movie logos on their pylons. I consider that as much an oops as the Starfleet pennant on the model of the S.S. Vico.

But the Sitak does have the nacelle markings, aft of the field grille. I wonder what those are...

--Jonah