Flare Sci-Fi Forums: U(?)SS Enterprise from ST:TMP

This is topic U(?)SS Enterprise from ST:TMP in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1778.html

Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :

Sorry guys, I couldn�t find the old thread, so I made a new one instead
U(?)SS Enterprise

Just scanned this pic from communicator. So, what�s with the USS and also the registry?

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

wtf?!?!? where is that from

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :

Interesting. We could still say the name is not Enterprise after all, but the USS/registry combination is a 'headache-o-mat'. Please try to explain (or shall we create our own little conspiracy and erase that thing from the records, saying we never saw it and it doesn't even exist? [Wink]

Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :

Well, the pic as I said is from the magazine star trek communicator.
As to the USS, well, the simplest explanation is to assume that two different navies use the same shortening system. HMS stands for Her Majesty�s Ship in England, but here in Sweden HMS stands for Hans Majest�ts Skepp - translated into HIS Majesty�s Ship. Our ships most certainly aren�t british [Big Grin]

So USS in this stands for something else than it does in starfleet.

Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :

Oh, another thing, the ship is listed in the Star Trek spaceflight chronology as a Declaration-class starliner, a passenger ship. Question - any pics of starships in that book?

[ June 01, 2002, 06:03: Message edited by: pIn'a' Sov ]

Posted by pIn'a' Sov (Member # 293) on :

ignore this post, Flare just hickuped [Embarrassed]

[ June 01, 2002, 06:04: Message edited by: pIn'a' Sov ]

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

Perhaps this is a 21st century american ship?
Those rings could be rotating sections to create gravity, it obviously posesses a pre-Impulse propultion system so it probably shouldn't be part vulcan as others had suggested.

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :

I doubt it, since the ships in the book up to and after the development of warp drive have UNSS before their names, if memory serves. Also, I believe the Declaration class is either late 21st or early 22nd Century and most definitely had warp drive.

You can also argue that artificial gravity predates warp travel by several decades, since the Botany Bay quite obviously had its own gravity system.

In any case, any canon status this book had has largely gone out the window in recent years. (Not that it ever had much in the first place; how you could rectify the dating scheme of the book with Decker's line abt Voyager 6's launch date was beyond me.)

Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :

(A point I made in the previous (U)SS Enterprise thread, but was ignored:)

The book "The Making of ST:TMP" says it's from the early 21st century, and was the first (sublight) ship to make it to the Alpha Centauri system. Non-canon, but very close to it, IMHO.

Since the TNGTM mentions Zefrem Cochrane to have relocated to the Alpha Centauri Colonies shortly after his breakthrough (suggesting they were founded even before the advent of warp drive), and the fact that the Charybdis was Mankind's third attempt to leave the Sol system (according to an Okudagram which was barely visible in "The Royale" but was reproduced in ST: The Continuing Mission) does not invalidate this.

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri:
(according to an Okudagram which was barely visible in "The Royale" but was reproduced in ST: The Continuing Mission)

They mentioned it in the episode. And I guess you don't mean Reverend's Okudagram? [Smile]

And about the HER/HIS in HMS: I thought they change it depending on the person being queen/king? In other words if the person that replaces the queen of England is male, they all become His Majesty Ship. Right?

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

Well either way it's still going to be HMS, isn't it?

If this "Making of TMP" info is correct then perhaps the Enterprise was the 5th Extrasolar mission, since Charybdis was the third and apparently a ship called Jacob was the forth.

quote:
FOLLOWUP MISSION JACOB RESULTED IN NEGATIVE TRACK

I've heard conflicting infomation on the first two missions, perhaps we could clear this up right now. Were the first two attempts sucessful or not? Okuda's literature seams to indicate that they infact failed, but what was actually stated on the show?

[ June 01, 2002, 10:47: Message edited by: Reverend ]

Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :

Kyle: No, not Reverend's hoax, obviously. While I knew the full text on the Okudagram I referred to, I didn't remember that the same statement was actually mentioned in "The Royale". It's been over a year ago since I saw that episode for the last time.

Reverend: I don't remember any other statements than that we know now about early sublight interstellar missions from Earth. But it's pretty obvious that, if we take the info from The Making of ST:TMP seriously (which I do, until it's contradicted), that the (U)SS Enterprise was part of an early 'exploration wave', which further included the Charybdis and the Jacob.

quote:
Were the first two attempts sucessful or not? Okuda's literature seams to indicate that they infact failed (...)

What can you tell more about that? Where did you hear/read this? Did Mike tell any other interesting things?

So, if two missions prior to the Charybdis and the Jacob failed, it's likely that the (U)SS Enterprise chronologically followed after the Jacob, since it obviously succeeded in its mission. Meaning that the (U)SS Enterprise was launched somewhere between 2038 (Jacob) and 2050 (to account for the 'early-21st century' info).

By the way, where did Communicator get the XCV-330 from, or did they make it up theirselves?

[ June 01, 2002, 16:33: Message edited by: Alpha Centauri ]

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

quote:
it's pretty obvious that, if we take the info from The Making of ST:TMP seriously (which I do, until it's contradicted), that the (U)SS Enterprise was part of an early 'exploration wave', which further included the Charybdis and the Jacob.

Sounds reasonable enough.

quote:
What can you tell more about that? Where did you hear/read this? Did Mike tell any other interesting things?

Well the timeline at startrek.com says that the first two were unsucessful, the Chronology and Encyclopedia simply say that it was the third attempt which may or may not imply the previous missions failing.
However, I belive someone did mention that the dialogue indicated that this was the 3rd sucessful attempt to leave the solar system.
I'd just like to determine which is correct although I'm inclined to go with Okuda on this one.

[ June 01, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Reverend ]

Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pIn'a' Sov:
Sorry guys, I couldn�t find the old thread, so I made a new one instead
U(?)SS Enterprise

Just scanned this pic from communicator. So, what�s with the USS and also the registry?

That should be SS. Not USS.

Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pIn'a' Sov:
Oh, another thing, the ship is listed in the Star Trek spaceflight chronology as a Declaration-class starliner, a passenger ship. Question - any pics of starships in that book?

Yes, that is the first appearance of that illo, although it's based on a Jeffries sketch of a possible Enterprise from before he came up with the saucer and secondary hull idea.
Try this site for more: Vessels of SF

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

quote:
That should be SS. Not USS.

That quoted sentence could have two meanings from Darkwing's brain.

1. He's read the thread and saying that it really does make sense as SS as we had all thought instead of USS as the drawing indicates.

2. He's never read the thread/seen the pic and assumes pIn'a' Sov made the mistake of calling it USS instead of SS which he believes is true but is actually USS from the picture.

I'm hoping he actually meant the first thought as thought number two would mean Darkwing posted without going through the entire thread first and in now looking stupid.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri:
By the way, where did Communicator get the XCV-330 from, or did they make it up theirselves?

quote:
Originally posted by Darkwing:
That should be SS. Not USS.

Umm...have you guys looked at the pic he posted?? That's the original painting from the movie set. [Roll Eyes]

-MMoM

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

Well, Mim has basically summed it down to proving my second meaning of Darkwing's statements and that he never looked at anything. Can I say he's an idiot now? [Big Grin]

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

What is the source of SS Enterprise? Only the encyclopedia? Because the Spaceflight Chronology always had the ship listed as USS Enterprise.

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

I know S.S. is in the Encyclopedia but I can't say if that's the only source or not. (What did The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture say?) Anyway, it's obviously U.S.S..

-MMoM [Big Grin]

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
What did The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture say?

"[...] since this was 23rd-century art work, the fourth illustration is of the very first starship U.S.S. Enterprise (never seen on television, but according to Gene Roddenberry, who supplied the sketch, it is a forerunner of the vessel we all know) [...]"