Did the dialogue in "The Naked Now" and "Legacy" call these ships by an S.S. prefix? (Of course, I fully support and prefer the Encyclopedia's designations, but I'd like to note the discrepancy in my shiplist... )
That is one very useful page Spike, it has just greatly enriched my shiplist Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Actually, the ship's name is "K.E. Tsiolkovsky" from it's dedication plaque.
At least that's what Mike Okuda told me (I don't know if it was visible in the episode, but we had a discussion about that on the TrekBBS and he contacted me).
And if the script (and episode) say S.S., I think S.S. is OK. Did the ship have an NAR-registry? Can't remember at the moment.
[Edit]It is NCC. That could be a problem. Three sources, therr different prefixes (or obvious prefixes, allthough we don't know what the model said, the NCC suggests a USS-prefix)
[ July 09, 2002, 15:48: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:That is one very useful page Spike, it has just greatly enriched my shiplist
Thanks, but unfortunately far from completness. Well, at least I can add the TNG season 3 ships at the end of this month.
quote:And if the script (and episode) say S.S., I think S.S. is OK. Did the ship have an NAR-registry? Can't remember at the moment.
No, it had a NCC-registry, the crew wore Starfleet uniforms, and the Starfleet emblem was on its dedication plaque.
[ July 09, 2002, 15:50: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: At least that's what Mike Okuda told me (I don't know if it was visible in the episode, but we had a discussion about that on the TrekBBS and he contacted me).
I'm not sure if it appeared onscreen, but I'm seen a print of it somewhere. The name and prefix are in Russian lettering so it looks more like K.3. Tsiolkovsky.
quote: And if the script (and episode) say S.S., I think S.S. is OK. Did the ship have an NAR-registry? Can't remember at the moment.
The plaque had an NCC reg, I don't know about the model. Perhaps someone could check the DVD for either of these?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
The plaque, the screenshot, and the ship. The model had the Grissom's registry AFAIK.
[ July 09, 2002, 16:05: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Thanks for the images, Spike. Okuda said he had done 2 plaques, one for the episode and one for a russian exhibition. But I guess one was just a copy of the other.
If the model is NCC-638, everything we have is the encyclopedia. If the book says NCC, it is NCC. The plaque supports this. But it also gives the K.3, which is, of course, not a prefix at all (Konstantin Eduardovitch Tsiolkovsky). In other words, there's not a single source whether it could be USS or SS. But AFAIR there has never been an SS-ship with an NCC, and the encyclopedia gives USS, too. On the other hand, there's the script that clearly says SS, right? Well, if there's nothing else, it looks like a 2:1-victory for USS.
[ July 09, 2002, 16:19: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The final shot does have the model bear NCC-638. Since we know the model to have not been relabeled, I'm guessing the effects shots were completed before the plaque was made. And since the model was not relabeled, and the plaque includes the guy's first and middle initials, I'm venturing to say that if the model had been labeled, it would say U.S.S. K.E. Tsiolkovsky. Ships have been named as so but only refered to by only the person's last name. I'm also venturing to say that everybody forgot about the S.S. prefix and automatically assummed U.S.S.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
But wasn't there a screw-up with the Cyrillic, and so the plaque actually says K. Z. Tsiolkovsky?
Not that I'm trying to make things more complicated or anything... Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: But wasn't there a screw-up with the Cyrillic, and so the plaque actually says K. Z. Tsiolkovsky?
Not that I'm trying to make things more complicated or anything...
Nooooooo.....!!! *loud bang as if someone's head just exploded*
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Since this was filmed after ST:IV, maybe the model was labled as the Copernicus That screen shot may be our best chance to determine if the Grissom was relabled for the spacedock sequence.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, the plaque technically says "K. Z. Tsiopkovskiy". However, the fact that the 'l' looks like a 'p' is probably just because of the font they used. And the proper 'e' looks a lot like the 'z' (instead of a '3', it looks like a backward 'C' w/ a horizontal line in the middle). So it's not too much of a stretch to make it the correct "K. E. Tsiolkovskiy".
As for the prefix and such, I list it on my ship list as "SS K. E. Tsiolkovskiy".
[ July 09, 2002, 21:00: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Did the dialogue in "The Naked Now" and "Legacy" call these ships by an S.S. prefix?
No, the Arcos wasn't called "S.S. Arcos" in this episode. It was identified as Federation freighter (like the Odin), and the two crewmen didn't wear Starfleet uniforms.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Additionally, the escape pod of the Arcos doesn't match the known models of Starfleet escape pods.
I am of the alone opinion the Arcos is not a Starfleet ship. I think she is a civilian freighter with a crew of two, a captain and an engineer. (I have similiar feelings regarding the original Antares from "Charles X".)
For me, I have a litmus test. If the canon material refers to a ship as a starship, she is a Starfleet registered craft. If the canon material says otherwise, she is a not a Starfleet registered craft.
For completeness: Starfleet: A. Dialogue- *"starship" *"U.S.S." B. Non-dialogue- *uniforms *hull markings *similiar structures(i.e. escape pods)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think Starfleet could well be running a merchant marine of its own, both in the TOS and TNG timeframes. The people would wear Starfleet (ish) uniforms and have special rights and duties compared with other sailors. They could be tasked with UESPA mapping missions, for example. Or diverted to deliver priority Starfleet shipments...
And I doubt there's that much of a difference between USS and SS. All USS's would be part of the broader SS category, really, if SS is taken to mean "starship". A civilian wouldn't bother adding the U. A Fleet hero might drop extra letters for brevity, too, if he was in a hurry.
Only printed references to SS (that is, Okudagrams, dedication plaques and pennants) should be taken to signify an implied difference. And I doubt we have had a real SS pennant yet, save for the "SS Birdseye" thing.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
by the way, the Antares crewmen, Captain Ramart and Mr. Nellis, were actually wearing Starfleet uniforms, just out of date ones (a sign they were on a long mission?). doesnt mean they werent in Starfleet.
BTW, wasn't the Arcos crewman wearing a Starfleetish uniform? he was seen onscreen. His name was T'su, he was played by Vladimir Velasco.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
S.S. is an older prefix and predates Starfleet. U.S.S., in its current form, came into use in the time of the Federation.
If the Antares was a Starfleet ship, why were her crew not dressed in Starfleet regulation uniforms? When we later saw Starfleet personal in TOS, they wore Starfleet regulation uniforms. The uniforms worn by Captain Ramart and his navigator were most similiar to that worn by Captain Merrick of the ill-fated S.S. Beagle . (We see a portion of his top and his pants in "Bread and Circuses". His vessel is clearly ideintified as a civilian scout lost six years prior to the episode.)
Furthermore, Mr. Okuda created an okudagram for the S.S. Xhosa which had the ship as "Antares Class". Mr. Okuda didn't hold to the idea postulated by the creators of TOS. This idea is to have ships identified by function, ex. starship class, scout class, runabout class, etc. Instead, Mr. Okuda chose to have classes named after the first ship in a class, ex. Constitution Class. The Xhosa specifications are those of a civilian star freighter. Ergo, the Antares of "Charlie X" was of this design and spawned several sister ships.
As for the Arcos , the uniforms worn by the crew were not of Starfleet. They were the uniforms worn by the observers at Mintaka 3. Their escape pod was not Starfleet issue. They were identified as a freighter, not as a starship.
Concluding, the Antares and the Arcos are in my opinion civilian ships operated by civilian crews. I know definitely from the dedication plaque located aboard a sister ship, the former ship was the prototype for a class of civilian freighters. As for the latter, she may be a retroconverted Starfleet starship. However, the evidence for this was very slight based on the testimony of a semi-canon work.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
the 'Mintaka' uniform was also worn by the crew of the Yosemite, some of whom were referred to by rank (lieutenant somebody died in the transporter).
BTW, wearing out of date uniforms doesnt mean you arent in Starfleet. Voyager wore out of date uniforms for years .. more seriously, even after the switch to season 3 TNG uniforms, tons of personnel still wore the jumpsuit version. and on DS9, in Rapture, when the crew switched over to the FC era uniforms, many of the personnel at the conference were still wearing TNG era uniforms.
These are all evidence that uniform changes in Starfleet arent instantaneous they probably take months to take effect.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Is it my imagination or do newark's posts read very much like those of targetemployee's?
How much time passed between 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' and 'Charlie X'? Maybe only a matter of months, definitely short enough for a small ship operating out in the sticks to still have the old uniforms.
And there's no reason why the USS Antares has to be the class ship of the Antares class. There could have been half a dozen starfleet ships called USS Antares before the class ship. And there's no reason why the civilian Antares class has to be the same as the Starfleet Antares class.
Oh please gods, don't let this turn into another Antares class thread.
I can easily buy the Arcos as a merchant marine or private frieghter. But the Tsiolkovsky and Antares are starfleet.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: I think Starfleet could well be running a merchant marine of its own
And as it happens, a "merchant service" is canon as of "Bread and Circuses," as it was this service which Merrick washed out into, and which presumably the Beagle (which, while we're at it, is described as a class 4 survey vessel, as well as a "stardrive vessel," and which, in one final odd bit of TNG synchronicity, has a crew of 47) belonged to.
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
I would have to agree on the Merchant Marine theory. The Merchant Marines ships now though dont have a USS in front, instead its USNS although most of the ships are formally Navy vessels which could be the case of the Tsiolkovsky and the Arcos, former Starfleet ships given to the Merchants. But thats just my point of view.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)