I was thinking about some of the information in the new Constellation article in the Star Trek magazine. According to the article, the USS Stargazer is a mothballed ship which can be redeployed for Starfleet service.
One of the curious questions about starships is, "Why is a Daedalus Class starship operational in the late 2260's?". My thinking goes something like this-
The class is retired in 2196. A small number of the ships from this class are put into a reserve fleet for future redeployment by Starfleet.
2266 or thereabouts. The Klingons and the Federation are feuding over territory and trade. The Organians settle the matter. An uneasy peace results.
2267 or thereabouts. The Federation, wary of the Klingons, reactivate older ships for the short-term. They bolster the size of the fleet. Among these ships, there is the very old U.S.S. Carolina NCC-160 . She has been upgraded in her software and technology and is assigned near the Klingon border.
I would like your input on this speculative scenario. Thanks.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'd simply drop the notion that the Carolina was a Daedalus class vessel. Or that her registry was NCC-160, for that matter.
It's all good and well to give longevity to some ship classes to satisfy the demands of on-screen canon, even if it goes against common sense - sci-fi is often about things that don't make common sense. But it's not smart to try and do that on one of the few ship classes that actually earned an on-screen reference to the retirement date. We should do everything we can to respect that date, even when some sources don't seem to.
The other retirement date we know, the one for the Soyuz class, is also something I'd rather hold on to with two hands, a good set of teeth and (if available) a prehensile tail. The nonsense in DS9 TM should definitely be forgotten or reinterpreted, as it again undermines a rare and precious on-screen fact.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The other retirement date we know, the one for the Soyuz class, is also something I'd rather hold on to with two hands, a good set of teeth and (if available) a prehensile tail. The nonsense in DS9 TM should definitely be forgotten or reinterpreted, as it again undermines a rare and precious on-screen fact.
By the 2260s I doubt that any amount of upgrading could make the Daedalus class combat ready against a Klingon ship. Possibly as transports or some kind of secondary vehicle but I would imagine it'd be more efficient either to reactivate more modern vessels or to build new light combatants.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If the Klingons use centuries old ships during TOS, why can't the Feds use them, too?
Of course you could say "Having a Daedalus among a Federation fleet is like having a sailing ship as an aircraft carrier escort nowadays", but what would happen if you install up-to-date tech? It would work, the question is just "what's cheaper, building an entirely new vessel or refitting an old one?" - and if you concider the size of the Daedalus alone, you couldn't even use it as a freighter. Maybe a partrol vessel, but the problem in a war is not having enough ships to patrol the border (and I'm sure they had enough) but assembling a powerful fleet. What can you do with dozen Daedalus' (Daedali? Daedalusses?) if one Bird of Prey can wipe them out?
Maybe the Carolina was a private research vessel like the Vico, but I doubt the ship was pressed back into service.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I'd simply drop the notion that the Carolina was a Daedalus class vessel. Or that her registry was NCC-160, for that matter.
Timo Saloniemi
Where'd that info come from anyway?
Maybe it was a refit Daedelus? Or an Oberth (TOS style)
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
This ship has many problems associated with it. According to dialogue, they should've been long retired by TOS, It is given the Daedalus Class designation in Encyclopedia 3rd Ed. According to the ship list on page 471, its registry is NCC-160, but according to the Carolina entry on page 66, It's NCC-235, supported by a side-view graphic of the ship.
Well, well, well. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: This ship has many problems associated with it. According to dialogue, they should've been long retired by TOS, It is given the Daedalus Class designation in Encyclopedia 3rd Ed. According to the ship list on page 471, its registry is NCC-160, but according to the Carolina entry on page 66, It's NCC-235, supported by a side-view graphic of the ship.
Well, well, well.
Well I'll be damned, I've never noticed that before. NCC-235 I can live with as the Carolina's reggo, better than NCC-160 at least. *alters shiplist*
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
IMHO, I believe that this whole "Carolina=Daedalus" thing was simply just a mistake (or at least an oversight) on Okuda's part when he was writing the Encyclopedia. Since all of the Constitution class ships in TOS were accounted for with Greg Jein's T-Negative list, the Carolina is the odd man out. Instead of inventing a TOS-era conjectural class, he just saves time by making the ship Daedalus class, even though it contradicts the Daedalus recall date. And he can't even get the registries right between the shiplist entry and the graphic.
Keep in mind that there were only three other Starfleet vessels mentioned being in operation during TOS besides the Connies: The Carolina, the Antares, & the Deirdre. For some reason, Okuda decides to arbitrarily make the Antares its own class, ignore the Dierdre, and make the Carolina a class of ship that it really shouldn't be.
I'm not trying to bash Michael Okuda. I like Michael Okuda. He's a real nice guy who I'm sure works very hard to make Star Trek the best it can be for the fans. But he's not the Star Trek God, just because he wrote the Encyclopedia. Everything that's not canonically stated or seen on the show itself can be subject to anyone's interpretation (& sometimes even canon things as well, provided they contradict each other, but that's a different story). So if Newark wants to believe his theory, fine. I personally think the Carolina was a different ship. I also think the Republic & the Farragut weren't Constitutions, either...
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Keep in mind that there were only three other Starfleet vessels mentioned being in operation during TOS besides the Connies: The Carolina, the Antares, & the Deirdre.
Wasn't the Valiant (Encyclopedia mentions NCC-1223) mentioned in "A Taste of Armageddon" a Starfleet vessel, although an older design which surely predates the Constitution Class?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Dukhat was talking about ships in operation.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
In TOS, the following facts present themselves:
A. Class Structure Superclass: Starship Class: J Class, Enterprise-type stsarship
Constitution Class (based on visual and non-visual clues)are marked by an asterisk.
There was never a definite statement in the original stating that the Enterprise-type starships were the only ones in service. There may have been other operational starship classes at the time. I like to think there were.
As for the other non-Constitution Class ships, what do we know about them specifically?
U.S.S. Archon and U.S.S. Horizon were both identified as starships operating out of Starfleet a hundred years before. Both were lost.
U.S.S. Farrugut was a starship attacked and severly damaged by a vampire cloud. Over half her crew, 200 personnal, were killed. So she could have been a Constitution Class starship. Yet we have the contradictory evidence of the "Cage" which shows the Enterprise of the same time as having 203 crew.
Of the unnamed ships, we know the list is reversed alphabetical. The Enterprise is near the bottom of the chart and Intrepid near the top. I can believe some of these ships are Constitution, but not all.
U.S.S. Antares belongs to an older class of ships. She, like the unnamed Class J starship, had older technology-i.e. baffle plates-and had a very small crew size. Her exact ship type was never pinned down.
U.S.S. Carolina was an operational starship assigned to a sector of space near to the Klingon border.
Though identified by Captain Kirk as "United Star Ship Republic", she may not have been a Constitution Class starship. Afterall, the captain was repeating her name and not identifying her by class.
U.S.S. Valiant is identified as a scout ship sent by Earth to the Eminair Star System. She was destroyed fifty years prior to TOS.
U.S.S. Yorktown is mentioned by name and never as a starship.
The S.S. Dierdre is not a starship. She is a merchant vessel with a top warp speed of 2.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Thanks for the info, Newark. Just two points of contention: The Intrepid, which you marked as being a Connie, was AFAIK never canonically seen or described as being one, while the Defiant most certainly was a Connie, as we could see her in "The Tholian Web."
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Of the unnamed ships, we know the list is reversed alphabetical. The Enterprise is near the bottom of the chart and Intrepid near the top.
They may not be listed in any sort of alphabetical order at all. The ship at the top could be in Parking Orbit Number One and so on.
quote:U.S.S. Antares belongs to an older class of ships. She, like the unnamed Class J starship, had older technology-i.e. baffle plates-and had a very small crew size. Her exact ship type was never pinned down.
Indeed, referred to as a cargo ship and as a space probe vessel. However, there's no positive evidence that baffle plates are limited to older ships.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm assuming that you meant to mark the Defiant with an asterisk, as that ship was clearly seen to be a Connie in "The Tholian Web."
I agree that the Carolina, in all probability, is not in fact a Daedalus-class vessel. (I have in fact been planning to update my shiplist on this matter, but I'm still debating whether to keep the registry---and, if so, which one---and I'll probably ask Okuda for his thoughts on the subject before proceeding.) I'm not really able to visualize it as a Connie either. (And that's probably a good thing, as we have too many of those floating around as it is!)
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: For some reason, Okuda decides to arbitrarily make the Antares its own class
Well, not quite arbitrarily. I believe he did it because of his listing of the Hermes from "Redemption" as an Antares-class vessel on the display graphic that SoundEffect has recently discovered. Granted, there's no particular need for the TOS Antares to be the latter's class ship, but it does make the overall list look nice.
-MMoM Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Going by how they got the Daedelus - from Matt Jeffries early Enterprise ideas - I believe there were TOS versions of the Oberth and the Miranda. Considering the Oberth registry - it's not hard.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or just the Oberth, if Sternbach's recent article is to be taken as semi-cannon in the least.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, I know - that's ANNOYING. Maybe a FEW were refit and a whole lot more were made new?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Sternbach's doubletalk about refits is vague enough for me to continue believing in whatever I want to believe. Which in this case is "Ships of the Star Fleet" with minor modifications to the original Constitution launch dates...
I'd like to think of the Carolina as a relatively weak vessel, even though this wasn't specified in "Friday's Child". Were another Constitution in trouble, Kirk probably wouldn't be that worried, and might set priorities differently.
As for the theory on early Oberths, I think this is an unproductive approach - we could have an unseen TOS class, and yet we make it a known one?
Further oddsandends: Pike's crew of 200 need not be the standard for Constitutions at any era. He could have suffered major casualties during a long mission. Or less crew than usual could have embarked, to save on consumables during an exceptionally long cruise. Or perhaps Pike was merely "tired of being responsible for" 200 people, whereas the other 230 he rather fancied? Or wasn't responsible for?
Heck, the 200 could have been his passengers (including the civilian-attired couple we saw in the beginning), and not his crew of 430. Perhaps people evacuated from a fallen Earth colony. Or relatives of Starfleet top brass on tour to the scenic parks of Rigel XXX?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The USS Intrepid has a crew of 430. This alone qualifies her by many as a Constitution Class starship.
When I speak about the technology of the ships, I am speaking solely of the technology mentioned in the first series. When we compare the known facts on engineering, I see an interesting distinction emerge. The J Class starship, mentioned in "The Menagerie, Part 1", was a ship equiped with baffle plates. This was apparently a very important part of a starship's engineering assembly. If this plate ruptured, deadly radiation (the "delta rays") was emitted and, if not contained, the ship would be destroyed. This is what happened with the U.S.S. Antares. I never heard of the U.S.S. Enterprise or her sister ships having baffle plates. Considering they were the state of the art ships in the 2260's, this suggests for me the possibiltity that baffle plates and the ships which used them were of a earlier generation of technology. Ergo, U.S.S. Antares is of an older class of ships. (U.S.S. Hermes' sister ship and, a class ship, the U.S.S. Antares I see as a homeage to this destroyed starship.)
We don't know much about the U.S.S. Carolina. She is an active duty ship that supposedly sent two distress calls. (I am basing this last fact on dialogue. From I can gather, there was one call from the S.S. Dierdre, a call off-screen from the U.S.S. Carolina, and a call on-screen from the U.S.S. Carolina.) She is not a heavy cruiser; the U.S.S. Enterprise is a heavy cruiser. What does this leave us with? She could be a destroyer, a scout, a patrol ship, a freighter, or some other type of ship. I think people believe she is a freighter because of her association with the S.S. Dierdre and the distress calls. I don't agree. I think the Klingons were desperate, and seeing how the U.S.S. Enterprise was ending a search-and-recovery mission for the S.S. Dierdre, attempted additional distress calls with the call letters of a Starfleet ship. We never did learn if the U.S.S. Carolina was in fact distressed as Scotty dismissed the calls as fake and returned to Capella IV.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
your logic fails you, my good city.
1) There is no qualifier that specifically establishes that a Constitutiononly has a crew of 430.. there could be several other types of ships with large crews like that..
the only reason Intrepid is commonly referred to as Constitution-class is because behind the scenes info (the writer's bible, the Okudapedia) believes it to be.
i.e. a Constitution of 1701's configuration at that time must have a crew of 430, but it does not necessarily follow that only Constitutions can have that crew number. There could be 430 people on a T'Mura-class long range explorer or on a Nevada-class colony transport.
2) Just because the Enterprise's baffle plates were not mentioned, it cannot be conclusively surmised that it does not have them, only that they were not mentioned. The Antares' age is dervied from the dialogue of the episode, however..
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Well, not quite arbitrarily. I believe he did it because of his listing of the Hermes from "Redemption" as an Antares-class vessel on the display graphic that SoundEffect has recently discovered. Granted, there's no particular need for the TOS Antares to be the latter's class ship, but it does make the overall list look nice.
A few months ago, when I was updating my shiplist, I also added some side notes. One referred to the "Antares Class." At first, I was under the assumption that the Starfleet Antares class was the same type of ship as the modular freighters (Batris, Norkova, Xhosa, etc.), and that the TOS Antares was the class ship.
Now however, I've changed my feelings about that. I believe that the Starfleet Antares is just another saucer/nacelled design, which has nothing to do with the non-Starfleet freighters of the same coincidental class name. I realize that Okuda made that Antares-class plaque for the Xhosa, but I think it was just meant as a homage to the TOS ship, & not meant to be taken seriously. And despite what the 'pedia says, there's absolutely no reason why the TOS Antares should be considered the class ship of the Hermes. The U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 wasn't the class ship of the Constellation class, so whay does the Antares have to be?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree with about 90% of that. I like to think that the Hermes is a newly built (at the time anyway) ship whose design is a refit of the original Antares Class. Of course I do have an ulterior motive for thinking that. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: A few months ago, when I was updating my shiplist, I also added some side notes. One referred to the "Antares Class." At first, I was under the assumption that the Starfleet Antares class was the same type of ship as the modular freighters (Batris, Norkova, Xhosa, etc.), and that the TOS Antares was the class ship.
Now however, I've changed my feelings about that. I believe that the Starfleet Antares is just another saucer/nacelled design, which has nothing to do with the non-Starfleet freighters of the same coincidental class name. I realize that Okuda made that Antares-class plaque for the Xhosa, but I think it was just meant as a homage to the TOS ship, & not meant to be taken seriously. And despite what the 'pedia says, there's absolutely no reason why the TOS Antares should be considered the class ship of the Hermes. The U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 wasn't the class ship of the Constellation class, so whay does the Antares have to be?
It doesn't *have* to be. But why is everyone hell-bent on its having *not* to be? Can you show any more evidence for your theory than for Okuda's? Doubtful. Your "feelings" on the subject are as much your own conjecture as the Encyclopedia info is his. The only difference is that his work is in one HELL of a better position to be used for official reference than yours.
I know we will never agree on such subjects as these, and I'm not trying to simply be argumentative for the sake of argument itself. But I wonder why your position is that everything in the Encyclopdeia and related sources that's conjectural should immediately be thrown out the window? Mine is rather that when real evidence from verbal and visual references within the show indicate strongly something other than what is written in the book, then the incorrect information should be supplanted by the canon info. Put simply, you begin with the assumption that everything in the Encyclopdedia is false unless proven true, wheras I assume everything is true until proven false.
Why shouldn't the TOS Antares be the class ship of the Hermes? Simply because of the time difference, or is there something a little better-founded? Why shouldn't the Antares' and Hermes' designs be the same as (or rather similar to) those of the Xhosa and Norkova? Is there really any reason? IMO it's good continuity to have all these ships tie together.
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:IMO it's good continuity to have all these ships tie together.
Good continuity is not determined simply by having gratuitous names dropped all over the place. Good continuity establishes a logical reason for the consistency -- or even the INconsistency, if there was a change. It's in the story, the background... not the name itself.
Perhaps I rely a little too much on analogies to the present day, but let me try anyway: Assume that for some bizarre reason, some Starfleet officer creates a holodeck program about the exploits of the United States Navy during World War II. In the first program, or "episode," (set in 1941) they mention the carrier USS Yorktown. It's never seen or mentioned again in the program. But several years later, that same Starfleet officer writes a second holodeck series about the Korean War. In that story, he again mentions the carrier USS Yorktown.
Now, would a knowledgeable participant in the program simply assume that these two ships were one and the same? Or would he stop to notice that the USS Yorktown (CV-6) was destroyed in the Battle of Midway, and the one that served during the time of the Korean War was named in the first one's honor?
Obviously there are many permutations of the above scenarios... my point is, that the same name does not on its own imply an identity.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Atop of that come the dramatic-aesthetic reasons. Usually, Starfleet ship classes are relatively large - that is, we eventually find there are many ships per class. Thus, the odds of meeting a "class ship" are inherently low. Not that such an encounter would be impossible, not at all. But the rarity of such an event should warrant some sort of an on-air comment. In the case of the Antares, we get none, whereas in the case of, say, the Prometheus or the Defiant, we got plenty.
And making a random ship-of-the-week a "class ship" means that instead of two cool new names, we only get one. Were USS Antares to be the sixteenth ship of Canopus class, we'd be 100% better off than in the case the Antares was of Antares class!
I do see the attraction of creating as much commonality or putative common origins between the numerous Antares designs as possible. Adding USS Antares to that unholy mess seems counterproductive, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The Antares Class matter is clouded further more by how classes were conceived and used in the 2260's and later, to a smaller degree, in other series and films. We have a few superclasses: Starship Class (TOS), Scout Class (ST III), and Runabout Class (DS9). If we consider the origin and design of the S.S. Xhosa's class, we may have another superclass, as suggested by a person on this board, the Antares Class. The Antares Class may be a superclass designation for ships not of Starfleet origin and that serve a function as freighters and transports.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the odds of meeting a 'class ship' are inherently low. Not that such an encounter would be impossible, not at all. But the rarity of such an event should warrant some sort of an on-air comment. In the case of the Antares, we get none, whereas in the case of, say, the Prometheus or the Defiant, we got plenty."
Bradbury. Galaxy.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique. Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class, we can assume until contradicted by onscreen evidence that this is the class ship. Since the TNG Hermes is listed as Antares Class, we can also assume that this is of the same class.
My take on it is the same as someone mentioned earlier. There's every reason to believe there's no TOS-styled ships still running around, they were probably refit the way the Constitutions and possibly Mirandas were.
The TNG Hermes, to me would have a refit Constitution saucer. A refit Antares Class may have been the partial hull we saw at Wolf 359, or even better, the crashed Olympia may have been Antares Class. Just a thought.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.
I'm sorry what's your source for that? It seems to me they could do whatever they want.. That's hardly a fact, its just an assumption at this point.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class
But the Encyclopedia doesn't say that. In the shiplist, the Antares is listed without class. The Encyclopedia just speculates that the Antares was the prototype.
quote:Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.
And what's your point? You aren't suggesting that there can't be a TOS Antares of the XYZ-class AND another Antares of the Antares-class, are you?
BTW: Could you please check your PMs?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: [QUOTE]Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class
quote:But the Encyclopedia doesn't say that. In the shiplist, the Antares is listed without class
Encyclopedia Ed 3. Page 470:
USS Antares - NCC-501 - Antares Class - "Charlie X"
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Good continuity is not determined simply by having gratuitous names dropped all over the place. Good continuity establishes a logical reason for the consistency -- or even the INconsistency, if there was a change. It's in the story, the background... not the name itself.
Perhaps I rely a little too much on analogies to the present day, but let me try anyway: Assume that for some bizarre reason, some Starfleet officer creates a holodeck program about the exploits of the United States Navy during World War II. In the first program, or "episode," (set in 1941) they mention the carrier USS Yorktown. It's never seen or mentioned again in the program. But several years later, that same Starfleet officer writes a second holodeck series about the Korean War. In that story, he again mentions the carrier USS Yorktown.
Now, would a knowledgeable participant in the program simply assume that these two ships were one and the same? Or would he stop to notice that the USS Yorktown (CV-6) was destroyed in the Battle of Midway, and the one that served during the time of the Korean War was named in the first one's honor?
Obviously there are many permutations of the above scenarios... my point is, that the same name does not on its own imply an identity.
I completely agree, surprisingly enough.
If I was looking at this from the POV of a person watching the shows for the first time, without any knowledge of Okuda or any behind-the-scenes stuff like the Xhosa plaque or the shiplist display with the Hermes' class on it, etc, my first instinct would *not* be to connect the old Antares to the various alien vessels described as "Antares-class" on TNG.
But obviously Okuda thought it would be neat if there were a connection, and so he created the display terming the Hermes an Antares, and made the Antares from "Charlie X" the class ship, assigning it an NCC-501 registry in the process. Still, at this point, the only non-speculative connection that's been made is that of the designation of Antares-class to a present day Starfleet vessel. In later years, he also created a dedication plaque for the Xhosa (a ship, mind you, that---hardly by coincidence IMO---is a modification of the same design possessed by other vessels that have been called Antares-class) done in the TOS-style calling it an Antares. In addition to this, he stlyed the displays on the interior of the ship to match closely those on the original Enterprise. Now a connection has been made between the Xhosa and TOS-era Starfleet vessels. After this, I find it not a great stretch to believe that the TOS-era U.S.S Antares is a common ancestor of both the Hermes and the Xhosa. The ties are subtle, but apparent.
So, while I agree that a name in and of itself does not indicate a common identity. But, it does allow for the possibility of one. And when that possibility of connection is expanded upon by actual identifying markers such as the aforementioned display and plaque, it becomes less of a possibility and more of a likelihood.
I'll admit that this might be regarded as all fairly sketchy, but I'm not trying to say that onscreen evidence alone can be used to prove that the "Charlie X" ship is the class ship of the "Redemption" ship and the DS9 ship. It can't. But it can be used to show that the suggestion that the above is true is neither impossible nor unreasonable. To dismiss the concept simply because there is no absolute proof, but when there is some evidence to back it, is not IMO to be advised. Especially when it's a source considered as high on the "official-ness" scale as the Encyclopedia that’s presenting it.
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.
Agreed. I don't think anyone is refuting this. What they are saying (and they are quite correct) is that the Antares doesn't HAVE to be an Antares-class vessel at all just because the Encyclopedia says so. You and I, and a lot of people recognize that the Encyclopedia's info is quite official and as close to canon as pretty much anything. But, as we know that later editions may say different things about the same ships if an error was made or some new canon info has supplanted the old stuff, a case can be made that it shouldn't be trusted blindly.
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Xhosa - a ship that is a modification of the same design possessed by other vessels that have been called Antares-class
In which episode was a Batris-modification called "Antares-class"?
quote:USS Antares - NCC-501 - Antares Class - "Charlie X"
Ah right. I confused it with the Enc I shiplist entry where the Antares didn't have a registry.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMoM: You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe. Don't lecture me that my views & thoughts are any more or less valid that anyone else's. End of argument.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: MMoM: You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe. Don't lecture me that my views & thoughts are any more or less valid that anyone else's. End of argument.
I apologize for coming off as "lecturing." I was simply trying to point out that not only is there nothing precluding things from being just as suggested by Okuda, but there is actually some manner of evidence supporting that view. (Granted, said evidence was created by Okuda himself.)
And my whole point was that your idea was no more or less valid or possible than the one in the Encyclopedia, and vice versa. Admittedly, I did point out that the latter was more likely to be used for future reference by TPTB. That is possibly an unnecessary point to make, as I'm sure you are already aware of that fact. But I make no apology for stating that in my opinion the evidence points more towards Okuda's ideas than yours. (Which, again, it obviously would, since he's the one who's generating it.)
-MMoM
P.S.
Spike: Was not the Batris herself, in "Heart of Glory," said to be Antares-class? (That's what Bernd's article on the subject claims anyway. I haven't seen that episode in forever...)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The Batris was identified only as a 'Talarian freighter' in 'Heart of Glory'.. the term Antares-class was not used in dialogue until season 5, when referring to the Bajoran ships in 'Ensign Ro'..
footage of the Batris was reused in 'Face of the Enemy' as the Corvallen frieghter, and referred to (by Romulan officers) as Antares-class. somebody decided that since they called that ship Antares-class, all the other reuses of that model should be Antares class, and thats how the Batris started getting called that.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:footage of the Batris was reused in 'Face of the Enemy' as the Corvallen frieghter
Are you sure about that. To me it looked like a modification of the Straleb ship.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The Batris model was similar to the Xhosa model. You're right that the Face of the Enemy Freighter is the same as the Straleb Transport. Two completely different freighter models.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
so, basically, no one ever referred to the Batris as Antares-class.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The main problem (as far as I can see) with having the Batris/Xhosa design and all the reuses there of as the same class as the "Charlie X" ship is that some of those reuses have been for ships that pre-date the Federation. Only one springs to mind however, it's the unmanned toxic waste barge that they had to tow into the sun. While it's possible that the Federation may contract a non-human shipyard to construct their Antares-Class freighters, a design that they may have been selling to other races in various form for centuries. It is hard to believe that Starfleet would use these ships as fully fledged Starships, surveyors complete with NCC and U.S.S. designations.
So the way I see it there are four main possibilities.
The "Charlie X" Antares is indeed the NX ship for Starfleet's Antares-Class of which the Hermes is a member while the Xhosa and Batris are of an alien Antares-Class that has nothing to do with Starfleet.
The "Charlie X" Antares is just an old survey ship of unknown class and that Starfleet would later build another U.S.S. Antares that was the NX ship for the Hermes's Antares-Class. While all the other Batris & Xhosa type ships are built by an independent shipyard that sells it's vessels to other governments and shipping companies.
That the "Charlie X" Antares looked exactly like the Xhosa and was used by Starfleet in the early days before they had the resources to build all of their own ships and that later on they do build an Antares-Class of their own of which the Hermes is a member.
That all the ships that are associated with the Batris design are all of the Antares-Class including the "Charlie X" and "Redemption" ships and Starfleet just uses them to make up the numbers in some of the more backwater areas of the Federation
There is plenty of evidence for each one and it's up to the individual to decide which explanation they prefer.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:so, basically, no one ever referred to the Batris as Antares-class.
Exactly. The only ships identified as "Antares class" were the Bajoran ship and the Corvallen freighter.
Maybe Okuda made a mistake when he wrote the Batris encyclopedia entry and designed the Xhosa's dedication plaque?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't see why Starfleet couldn't simply be producing Xhosa-like ships on its own. The design seems to be ubiquitous in the area. If everyone else uses it, why shouldn't SF?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, I think Starfleet likes to project the image of a nice, big, technologically advanced organization. Kinda hard to project that image if you're making the same ships that the average schmoe uses, no?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I would like to raise a small point. In the illustrations showing the various dedication plates over the years, Mr. Okuda stated very openly he didn't understand the original Enterprise's plate. He didn't know what "Starship Class" means. This is rather surprising for the answer can be found in the Making of Star Trek. Anyway, Mr. Okuda created a dedication plate for the S.S. Xhosa using the same system as the first known plate. However, instead of following the original intention of the superclass listed as in TOS, he listed a specific class on the plate. This was what he understood from doing his own plates. So, there was an Antares prototype ship for the Antares Class and for which the S.S. Xhosa belongs. However, if we follow the original intentions, the Antares Class was a superclass. This latter was supported by two different designs being referred to as Antares Class. So, where does this place the U.S.S. Antares of "Charlie X"?
If we follow Mr. Okuda, she was the class ship of the Hermes and the S.S. Xhosa.
If we follow the original, she was an older survey ship. She was built before the Enterprise-type starships which didn't employed baffle plates. (Baffle plates, from my study on the internet, are used for regulating the flow of gaseous matter or liquids in a system such as air ventilation.) Enterprise-type starships employed force fields for the regulation of fluids or gases. She may been a J Class starship.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: She was built before the Enterprise-type starships which didn't employed (sic) baffle plates. (Baffle plates, from my study on the internet, are used for regulating the flow of gaseous matter or liquids in a system such as air ventilation.) Enterprise-type starships employed force fields for the regulation of fluids or gases. She may been a J Class starship.
I've gotta say again.. we have no relevant technical data on whether or not Constitution-class ships (that's the name of the class the Enterprise belonged to, in case your internet study failed to reveal that) had things called baffle plates..
remember again that a google search does not a canon reference make...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: I would like to raise a small point. In the illustrations showing the various dedication plates over the years, Mr. Okuda stated very openly he didn't understand the original Enterprise's plate. He didn't know what "Starship Class" means. This is rather surprising for the answer can be found in the Making of Star Trek.
Damn him for not reading every book ever written on TOS! He should burn to the ground.
To be fair, "Making of Star Trek" is a fairly fascinating book. But to check, at any point do they refer to the Enterprise as a "Constitution-class starship"? Because if they do, I am curious as to why it was never said in "TOS" (and where the idea came from). And if it isn't, then why hasn't all subsequent canon ship info been burned to the ground for daring to suggest such a name?
Also, can we stop this "J-class starship" thing? Please? It's really, really annoying.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Hm... If "baffle plate" is a real term, and is defined as mentioned above, perhaps baffle plates were the predecessors to using dilithium crystals to regulate the M/A reaction. If this were the case, a disappearing baffle plate would certainly be as catastrophic as it was in "Charlie X".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:She may been a J Class starship.
Why?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And "Why not?" brings you thirteen minus points.
OTOH, what about calling her SPV Antares, NAR-xxxxx? How canonical is the USS part? "Space Probe Vessel" could be the equivalent of "United(federationofplanets) Star(fleet) Ship", an indication that the ship belongs to a certain agency (in this case, the United Earth Space Probe Agency). It need not tell anything about the type of the ship. She could remain a simple cargo vessel, one that just happens to haul cargo for the UESPA and not for Starfleet or Dytallix or Yoyodyne. And her existence would in no way influence the later (earlier/parallel?) existence of a USS Antares, NCC-xxxxx.
OTTH, it might not be a good idea to disregard the "space probe" part from the mission profile of the Antares. What would a regular freighter have been doing near Thasus and happening upon Charlie Evans? And her crew did wear Starfleet uniforms, even if an outdated style.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
What reference DOES give the class as Constitution? and what references give the Constitution the number 1700, which would usually mean it's the class ship (having the lower number)... but then again, what about the two ships with even lower numbers. In TOS, they actually refered to the Enterprise as the Starship class. Granted, that doesn't mean much in a fleet of several classes of starships with a century of star travel history. Another point of interest, is that the Enterprise had a Captain, while in the Ultimate Computer ep. had a Commodor commanding the fleet, assumably from his flagship, unless he was just commanding from the bridge of another captain's ship.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
If you really want to throw things out of whack, you might also consider Matt Decker of the Constellation. He was also a Commodore. But my assumption was that he was recently promoted to that rank, but Starfleet didn't have a position available that's better suited for him in his new rank, so he remained the captain of his ship.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: If you really want to throw things out of whack, you might also consider Matt Decker of the Constellation. He was also a Commodore. But my assumption was that he was recently promoted to that rank, but Starfleet didn't have a position available that's better suited for him in his new rank, so he remained the captain of his ship.
Or possibly that he was commander of a small task group that was on dispersed border patrol duties or something (I can't really remember the episode so...). He might have had say a light cruiser and two or three destroyers/scouts under his command that just happened to be elsewhere.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
My own explanation of the TOS dedication plaque is that at the time, the terms CLASS and TYPE were thrown around quite liberally so what you end up with is a ship's type being displayed on the dedication plaque instead of the more specific class. Evidently at this time Starfleet couldn't decide whether to base themselves on the navy or the air force. As chance would have it, I did a plaque for the "Charlie X" Antares a few months ago, the "class" designation is nice an neutral I think.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Matt Decker and the Constellation was in the episode with the Planet Killer/Eater. His crew died when Decker put them down on a planet and the Planet Killer destroyed it. He died when he stole one of the Enterprise's shuttles and tried to stop it. The Constellation was later successfully used.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ahh yes, the original Unauthorized Shuttle Launch�! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: so, basically, no one ever referred to the Batris as Antares-class.
Okay. But that really has nothing to do with the argument. Regardless of whether the Batris was Antares-class or not, the Xhosa WAS. Notice that nowhere in my statements is there any dependency on the Talarian freighter being an Antares. I merely point out that I do not believe it to be a coincidence that the Batris was termed as such in the first Encyclopedia, and then later on DS9 a vessel of similar configuration shows up with a dedication plaque calling it by that name.
In any case, what I've said still stands. There is (IMO) an implied connection between the Antares-class freighter Xhosa and the TOS-era Starfleet, which I believe is clearly a result of Okuda's belief that the Antares from "Charlie X" is a class ship.
Timo: At that point in TOS, the "United Earth Space Probe Agency" was simply another name for Starfleet. The Enterprise herself was said on at least two occasions to operate under the UESPA's auspices. I don't really think that it was supposed to be some separate service.
-MMoM Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Yeah, I know. But the "At that point" explanation doesn't hold water within the Trek universe itself, since we now know of a pre-TOS Starfleet (and also of a pre-pre-TOS UESPA, for that matter). Temporally, UESPA and SF must have been parallel. Functionally, who knows?
"Space Probe Vessel" just sounds like the sort of a formal designation that could have become devoid of a meaning. I mean, who in his right mind would say "probe vessel"? Interpreting it as an expression similar to "United Star Ship" frees our hands to further speculation, and simplifies our picture of what the Antares really was.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The situation is quite a mess now. This is not a bashing of Star Trek or Star Wars. It is a comparison.
The prequels to Star Wars, though they were duds in the scriptwriting and characterization departments, were great at portraying a world before the trilogy we know from our youth. They faced the same quandry as the producers of Enterprise encountered-how to do a prequel when the modern advancements in technology render the original's depiction of technology obsolete? (Here I am thinking of the use of computers in the first trilogy and other small details that stand out now.) They succeeded. We are able to see the development of technologies used in the first trilogy, the political story of the birth of the Empire, and the family history of the Skywalkers.
Now to not bash Star Trek, but I do need to ask this question. Why couldn't the producers attempt the same level of success? As lamented often here and on other boards, the first is very vague on technology as oppossed to later series. There was a noticeable lack of Trek babble in the first. I see this as an advantage. With a lack of data, the producers could have created a prequel universe that was true to the original-small ships operating out of UESPA which employed nuclear weapons and other less advanced technologies and still hold true to Star Trek: The Original It would be set in a time when Earth was coming into its own and finding species near to Earth. As it stands, Enterprise is an anachronism or the first series is. Take your pick.
(I have made my pick-Enteprise is an anachronism and is not canon.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I for one am happy (or not really; more like "content") with the idea that there's a technological plateau there that expands throughout the six SW films, or all the Trek shows.
For Trek it is even more fitting, as the Trek galaxy is not a tightly integrated monobloc: there are "ancient", "old" and "new" races there, not to mention visitors from the future, all of which interact and individually contribute to a whole. This means that there is no such thing as "new tech" - the Boojumian Empire must have invented gadget X or phenomenon Y ages ago, so the invention of warp drive should near-immediately provide Earth with that knowledge, too. It would be patently silly for Earth not to have photon torpedoes or cloaks (or attempts at creating or purchasing those) a century after getting interstellar.
In fact, there's too *little* of this plateau in Trek, and too *much* chronological advancement, to my tastes. Virtually nothing should have been left for the Feds to "invent", and virtually everything for them to "find", through the work of people like Roger Korby or Carter Winston, or through traders and ambassadors. (I can comfort myself by saying that the plateau is full of pits, perhaps because a big war wiped the slate clean in Earth's vicinity just before the Vulcans and the Earthlings got starborne. But I don't want to do that myself - Paramount should do it for me!)
That doesn't mean I'd be happy with the lack of distinction between ENT and TOS and TNG. ENT should certainly be a chrono-logical entity when it comes to interstellar politics and the organizing of Starfleet, signing of alliances, triggering of hostilities... These should reflect the fact that ENT predates TOS predates TNG. ENT should be working more actively to relay this idea to the audience.
Too bad the show fumbled at the very start, and chose "Starfleet" as the name of Archer's organization, and "starship" as the designation of his vessel. Not that I feel that Archer should have been a UESPA employee - but I would definitely have wanted a different organization, even though I have nothing against it operating phaser-armed and transporter-equipped ships.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: My own explanation of the TOS dedication plaque is that at the time, the terms CLASS and TYPE were thrown around quite liberally so what you end up with is a ship's type being displayed on the dedication plaque instead of the more specific class.
This is also my interpretation of Archer's line that "Enterprise is an NX Class starship". I'm hoping it will turn out you can simply replace 'NX' with the word 'Experimental' and that the good ol' NX-01 will become known more commonly as Enterprise Class. And that future ships of this class will display NCC registries.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
You know I'm still debating if Enterprise is even Trek to begin with. It's not "Star Trek: Enterprise"... it's "Enterprise" "based on Star Trek" [note the separation]. Kinda like "Star Trek" "based on stuff borrowed from some book whose title I have currently forgotten, just like Lost in Space." Gee, I'm hitting myself trying to think of that name, I'm really gonna hate myself when someone tells me.
Ok, so it shares the aliens and some of the technology--- but none of the story, background, or vision [ok... maybe the stories are rehashed... but those stories are from the 24th century and/or Delta Quad (and those stories are iffy to begin with), not Enterprise's setting].
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: My own explanation of the TOS dedication plaque is that at the time, the terms CLASS and TYPE were thrown around quite liberally so what you end up with is a ship's type being displayed on the dedication plaque instead of the more specific class.
This is also my interpretation of Archer's line that "Enterprise is an NX Class starship". I'm hoping it will turn out you can simply replace 'NX' with the word 'Experimental' and that the good ol' NX-01 will become known more commonly as Enterprise Class. And that future ships of this class will display NCC registries.
Sooo that means there is an Enterprise Class Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh, dear god, I can't believe I'm doing this...
quote:Originally posted by J: You know I'm still debating if Enterprise is even Trek to begin with. It's not "Star Trek: Enterprise"... it's "Enterprise" "based on Star Trek" [note the separation]. Kinda like "Star Trek" "based on stuff borrowed from some book whose title I have currently forgotten, just like Lost in Space."
Oh, for fuck's sake get over it. All the Star Trek shows since TNG have been "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry". It's not called "Star Trek: Enterprise", because "Star Trek: Enterprise" sounds really, really silly.
quote:Originally posted by newark:
The prequels to Star Wars, though they were duds in the scriptwriting and characterization departments, were great at portraying a world before the trilogy we know from our youth. They faced the same quandry as the producers of Enterprise encountered-how to do a prequel when the modern advancements in technology render the original's depiction of technology obsolete? (Here I am thinking of the use of computers in the first trilogy and other small details that stand out now.) They succeeded.
They did? Are we watching the same series of films where ANH now looks hopelessly outdated compared to TPM and AOTC? Or was that computer simulation of the Death Star's destruction really Cutting Edge for you?
quote:Now to not bash Star Trek, but I do need to ask this question. Why couldn't the producers attempt the same level of success?
Because one of them had 6 hours to compare to, and the other had several billion, maybe?
quote:There was a noticeable lack of Trek babble in the first. I see this as an advantage. With a lack of data, the producers could have created a prequel universe that was true to the original-small ships operating out of UESPA which employed nuclear weapons and other less advanced technologies and still hold true to Star Trek: The Original.
If I could do one thing, it would be to hunt down all references to UESPA in TOS and BURN THEM TO THE GROUND.
Look, they used it twice. It got replaced by Starfleet. They obviously meant Starfleet. Can't we just file UESPA in that same catagory as the Vulcan's being "conquered" and ignore it? Please? Blish did in his novelisations, after all...
quote:As it stands, Enterprise is an anachronism or the first series is. Take your pick.
(I have made my pick-Enteprise is an anachronism and is not canon.)
Bully for you. I happen to think that Chekov's hair in "Catspaw" should be declared non-canon. Doesn't change a flipping thing though. But you continue to put your fingers in your ears and hum very very loudly.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It might be worth remembering that alot of fans went through this exact same discussion back when TNG first came out. Remember those who refused to watch it on the basis that it wasn't "real" Star Trek?
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
I feel enterprise is canon
You have most of the same species and such The federation in a sort.
By my book its canon
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Psyliam,
If you hate UESPA as much as I do, then I have worse news for you. Mr. Sternbach created labeling for Friendship One which had UESPA markings. This is modern trek. Not some prototypical series attempting to build the foundation and structure of its fictional universe. So there, Enterprise doesn't even agree with the facts as presented in Voyager.
I was open to TNG when it premiered and never saw a problem with the series. I also happen to grow up with reruns of the first and watch this one more then the others. As with TNG, I was open to the series Enterprise. However, the difference is that I have expectations of what the pre-TOS world should look like. I expected a primitive ship using nuclear weapons and being close to Earth. Not some 24th-22nd century hybrid which used weapons of the 23rd century. This doesn't jive with I saw and heard on the first.
I mention UESPA because this organization has support in the modern Trek and is not an anachronism we can toss out with the bath water.
Psyliam,
I like you as much you like me which is not a whole hell of a lot. Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
There is a major difference between TNG and ENT. For starters, TNG had a realistic plot for a TV show [period]. ENT is not as entertaining as TNG. Secondly, TNG had a plot & setting that was consistant with what TOS had established. There have been many complaints and instances of this mentioned elsewhere, no need to go into it.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: ENT is not as entertaining as TNG.
Says you.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by J: ENT is not as entertaining as TNG.
Says you.
And says several million American viewers. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I must say, watching TNG, it's so good to see a group of sensible people who know what they are doing. Quite refreshing after two seasons of Archer and co. playing about with massage oil and dogs. ENT has it's own entertaining points, but perhaps it's time for a new 24th century Series VI? Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Like I said before in some other topic, Enterprise is quite popular with the general public. The only ones who are complaining are in fact the fans. Unless you can do better, go through college, get a degree in some random entertainment area that Enterprise needs, go blow someone, and please do us all a favor and show how you can do a better job. If you cannot do that, then shut up, don't watch the show and spare some of us who do enjoy the show.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: This is also my interpretation of Archer's line that "Enterprise is an NX Class starship". I'm hoping it will turn out you can simply replace 'NX' with the word 'Experimental' and that the good ol' NX-01 will become known more commonly as Enterprise Class. And that future ships of this class will display NCC registries.
But that would mean that Enterprise is the first Starfleet ship. Which, clearly, it is not.
-MMoM Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: Like I said before in some other topic, Enterprise is quite popular with the general public.
That's an unjustified generalization. Prove it.
I've got several years' worth of Nielsen ratings that say that a hell of a lot more people liked to watch TNG than "Enterprise."
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QUOTE]But that would mean that Enterprise is the first Starfleet ship. Which, clearly, it is not.
What other Starfleet ships have been positively identified? Starfleet is only 12 years old as of 2151. It would take probably that long to get a starship designed and built in that amount of time. There's no formal Starfleet Academy since the Academy Logo cites 2161 as it's founding date, so we don'tknow how long training is for Starfleet officers.
I thought the entire premise of the series was for us to witness the circumstances of the first Starfleet ship's adventures!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
You're confusing your Starfleet's. (United Federation Starfleet & United Earth Star Fleet) Indeed there was another UESF ship mentioned, the Shenandoah plus I think one of Malcolm's friends was onboard another ship and had a similarly styled ship patch to enterprise's
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
There wouldn't *be* an organization called "Starfleet" without any ships. Besides, there's the Neptune-class from a decade earlier.
And not to nitpick, but didn't the "Broken Bow" script say that Starfleet was 15 years old at the time? (Meaning it was begun in 2136?)
In any case, Drexler was probably intending to build on the letter combination class names known to have been in use in early times. (DY, etc.) This is backed by the use of other letter classes on the show. (J-class and Y-class.)
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Starfleet is Starfleet. It's not going to cease to be and when the Federation is founded another of the same name in it's place. Highly unlikely.
The Shenandoah probably launched AFTER Enterprise did. Was it ever revealed that it was out and about years before??
What evidence from the episodes leads to the conclusion that Enterprise isn't the first Starfleet vessel?
With all the significance of ships named Enterprise in series to come, doesn't it seem like a retro poetic justice that the first Starfleet ship happened to be named Enterprise?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: You're confusing your Starfleet's. (United Federation Starfleet & United Earth Star Fleet) Indeed there was another UESF ship mentioned, the Shenandoah plus I think one of Malcolm's friends was onboard another ship and had a similarly styled ship patch to enterprise's
Well, the Shenandoah was implied to be a new ship in "Silent Enemy."
There are NOT two separate Starfleets. They are the same organization. The fleet we see in ENT will simply expand to include the whole UFP. This is very clearly the intention of TPTB, and furthermore it was confirmed in the January 2003 Star Trek: The Magazine.
From the article entitled "Introduction to Federation Vessels," page 32, paragraph 1: "Starfleet began life as a purely human organization, operating a variety of warp vessels including Enterprise NX-01. However, it came into its own with the formation of the Federation in 2161, and since then has been responsible for thousands of ships."
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I don't completely follow the logic. It all has to start with one ship at some point. So they call it Starfleet with the intention of eventually having a fleet. They can't just pop into existence: instant fleet!
I don't remember the context of the Neptune Class (which in the show was not definitively a Starfleet ship), but it sounds like a more conventional name for ship classes we'll come to know. By the way, weren't letter-only classes, even in TOS freighters and transports, not Starfleet vessels? I think the true letter combos are probably reserved for that.
I don't care what the script says for Starfleet's age. Archer and Trip had a discussion in season 1 and it turned out to be 12 years. That's what I'll base it on.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: And not to nitpick, but didn't the "Broken Bow" script say that Starfleet was 15 years old at the time?
No.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: I don't care what the script says for Starfleet's age. Archer and Trip had a discussion in season 1 and it turned out to be 12 years. That's what I'll base it on.
Well, that's what I'm asking. Where did the 12 year figure come from? I don't remember the said conversation. What episode?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I'll try and track it down.
I used to just gather facts from episodes. I'm now starting to write down references as well. Never bothered before.
I'm actually suprised this had not become common knowledge. Usually information like that would be jumped on right away.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
After doing a little searching through old ENT Forum threads, I think I've found the source of my 15-year figure.
Apparently, in interviews from TV Guide and elsewhere, Rick Berman stated that Captain Archer had been a Starfleet officer for 15 years. So Starfleet is at least 15 years old, but not necessarily exactly that old. That's a long enough time for me to say that there MUST have been other SF vessels along the way.
And even if it *is* only 12 years, that's still long enough.
-MMoM
[ December 15, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
AAAARGH. How come I know this, and I don't even watch Enterprise?
It's less than 20 years old according to the bible. I don't recall Mark posting an onscreen reference.
If you hate UESPA as much as I do, then I have worse news for you. Mr. Sternbach created labeling for Friendship One which had UESPA markings. This is modern trek. Not some prototypical series attempting to build the foundation and structure of its fictional universe. So there, Enterprise doesn't even agree with the facts as presented in Voyager.
Dear god, no! Not labelling!. I am undone. We shall now rejoice of the world where the Enterprise-A had transwarp and Gene Rodenberry was commander in chief of Starfleet for seven billion years.
quote:As with TNG, I was open to the series Enterprise. However, the difference is that I have expectations of what the pre-TOS world should look like. I expected a primitive ship using nuclear weapons and being close to Earth. Not some 24th-22nd century hybrid which used weapons of the 23rd century. This doesn't jive with I saw and heard on the first.
Again, that's great for you. Really. It is. Smashing. I personally wanted a series where I ruled all the world and received hand jobs from Charisma Carpenter on a daily basis. But that didn't happen. Sometimes we have to let go of what we think things should be like.
quote:Psyliam,
I like you as much you like me which is not a whole hell of a lot.
Huh?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Speaking of Ms. Carpenter, Enterprise tends to get numbers a little higher than Buffy. Therefore it is a cultural phenomenon like Buffy.
Or maybe such numbers do not mean what we think they mean. But by all means, let the silliness continue.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I was reading on the TrekBBS an article written in the Los Angeles Times. There is growing concern within Viacom, the owner of Paramount, and outside the company on the fate of UPN and Enterprise. Enterprise's numbers are dropping. An approximate 2/3 of the audience have quit watching the show.
Psyliam,
I am responding to your web persona. It's in your face agression and I don't like it.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If Starfleet is so young at the time of Enterprise, it makes you wonder where the senior officers came from initially. Were there national Space navies? I suppose commercial spacers is another option but then you'd have to train them in military and exploration duties.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
In the founding of real-world navies, the answer has usually been "merchant mariners and foreign advisors/mercenaries". In this case, though, foreign aid seems out of the question. Not only would Earth refuse, out of specieist pride and a good sense of self-preservation; the Vulcans would probably try to stop this as well.
I trust people from various Earth military services like national or planetary air forces and navies would form the early Earth Starfleet, or its predecessor services. There have probably been space brances to militaries for the better part of two centuries in the ENT era, even if these haven't had much experience in fighting interstellar adversaries.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
To weave a bit of today's events with Trek history, I would speculate that as the satellite-based missile defense systems grew in size and prominence, there was a need to find a way to combat them. Ground-based lasers work to some extent, but having an armed spaceship in orbit to take out enemy satellites -- or even to shoot down defensive missile interceptors -- would bring about the beginnings of national space militaries for patrolling Earth orbit.
IMO, space travel wasn't unheard of by the time of "First Contact" -- when the Borg started firing on Cochrane's missile silo, they figured it was ECON, suggesting that attacks launched from orbit had happened in the past, probably during World War III.
Later, as Humans started to spread out into space, they'd begin to consider the need for self-defense. The speciesist attitude we've seen in ENT would suggest that Humans would want to have a military to protect their own planet(s) -- no matter if their slow, popgun-equipped barges wouldn't stand up to any Klingon or other alien ships.
And so after First Contact, nations built their own navies for their defense and the furtherance of their own national interests in interstellar space, but at the same time the trend towards global unification led to the creation of the United Nations Starfleet. (Or whatever the name of the global government is in ENT.) And by the time the Enterprise had launched, pretty much all of the official Earth space navy had been brought under the banner of Starfleet.
There's no doubt in my mind that there were at least a handful of Earth Starfleet ships in service before Enterprise. First off, it would make no sense for everyone to sit on their hands and wait for the magical benefits of the Warp Five Engine -- especially because warp drive itself was already a giant leap for Mankind. And so even though Starfleet would have been seriously restricted in range, they'd still send out ships.
I'd compare the pre-ENT Starfleet to basically a coast guard-type outfit; they have ships enough to manage their domestic affairs within the Sol system and send out a few expeditions to the nearest stars, but nothing near enough to make them an interstellar power. (Which is basically what "Enterprise" is showing -- Humans becoming an interstellar power.)
Consider that the NX-01 can reach Warp 4.5 quite easily; that's 91 times the speed of light. If the fastest earlier Earth ships could make at best Warp 3, then the NX-01 can still go THREE TIMES AS FAST as the next-fastest Earth ship. They're completely on their own, really. (Yes, that's a cliched assertion, but still true.) So that's why we don't even get a hint of any other nearby Earth ships.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
If we are talking about Earth becoming an interstellar power, then we should probably look at the parallel of the US gaining power starting from the Spanish-American war and continuing onward.
So are the Romulans going to be the Spanish in this situation, thus Earth is going to gain colonies that would have been previously held by the Romulans?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If there were system patrol and other craft out in the Solar system prior to WWIII (and i agree with MinutiaeMan that there were) then I wonder what happened to the crews after the war? Did the crews somehow manage to get back to Earth, or did they die in space? I wouldn't have thought it'd be easy to reenter the atmosphere just after a nuclear war, even with ground control (and i doubt there'd be very much of that!).
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I really don't see all that many parallels between Earth c2150s and the US c1890s. The US wasn't exploring new territory, the US didn't help form an international federation ten years later. On the other hand that was a period where, in several fields, the US rapidly caught up with and then overtook older nations, which is something we're seeing the start of in the Enterprise timeframe.
Romulans as the Spanish? Nah, if that was a good analogy then the Spanish would still be a major power now, 'cos we know that the Romulan Star Empire is still big news two hundered years later. In the 1890s Spain was a spent force already well in decline. The US could hardly have picked an easier opponent (look at the other European powers of the time - the British, Germans and even French would have been much more of a challenge). I can't see the Enterprise producers choosing to display the Romulans in the same light.
And Earth taking over Romulan territories would stretch even further the implausability on no one knowing what a Romulan looked like until the 2260s.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Though the US did come into its own as a global power only after the Spanish-American War, that was actually by choice -- the Monroe Doctrine originally established in 1820 was basically to keep the European powers out of the Western Hemisphere long enough for the States to build up their own industrial base and establish their own power without interference from Europe. The US deliberately stayed out of international affairs for the most part before then. Other than following that wonderful policy of Manifest Destiny and starting the Mexican "War."
But interstellar politics isn't what this forum is for.
To use an analogy for Starfleet, I think it would be better to compare the Earth Starfleet to the continental naval forces established during the War of Independence. At that point, the colonies got most of their ships from merchants (and crewed by merchants), with only a small handful of larger cruisers mainly loaned by the French.
Although now that I think of it, an even better analogy would be the Japanese, between 1854 and 1900. They had practically no technology for seafaring or many other technological advancements that had permeated around the world by that point; Commodore Perry's steamship sailing into Tokyo Bay was a "first contact" of sorts. After that, the Japanese managed to establish a powerful nation for themselves in barely 40 years. In that time they went from a Middle Ages-equivalent kingdom to an early industrial nation. And though I don't condone the wars that developed after 1900, the Japanese certainly became one of the strongest nations in the world.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Kahn stole a cargo ship, in 1999 (star trek time), which means that by WW-3 (40 years later) there MUST be stations, moon bases, mars bases... you know... stuff. That brings back the question of how the Phoeniz landed. Maybe it didn't. Maybe he docked at the space station and cought a lift down.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
yes, because the U.S. gained the ability to go to the moon in the 1960s.. it must necessarily follow that thirty years later, we'd have gone back to the moon a million billion times, and built houses there, and have robot dogs as pets!
well, we do have robot dogs now. but the rest of your logic sucks.
-> The Botany Bay had the ability to carry cargo, but was it solely a cargo ship? I watched the episode and they discussed it was for interplanetary colonization.
Just because we have a ship that can do that, doesnt mean colonies were ever made.
-> Khan relegated his subordinate Kahn to stay behind on Earth and make hot dogs. and the Phoeniz crashed years before they launched the Phoenix. The Botany Bay was launched in 1996, not 1999. WW3 was in the 2050s, thats 50-60 years after 1996, not 40.
[ December 17, 2002, 17:37: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
WWIII was in the 2050's, not the 2250's.
But also don't forget that space travel also got put back a few decades somehow (thanks to Voyager's retconning), because ships like Ares IV and Charbydis were really primitive and not much better than what we've got today. On the other hand, we also had the DY-100's with artificial gravity, the Earth-Saturn Probe which almost certainly returned its pilot alive to Earth, and the SS Birdseye which also had artificial gravity and cryogenic suspension chambers.
On the topic of extraterrestrial colonies and space stations, I have a feeling that if they were established, they probably either tried to return to Earth and abandoned any off-planet presences, or else perished where they were. Though it didn't explicitly rule the idea out, I don't think that there were any Humans living in space at the time of "First Contact." When nuclear war approached, some of the more scientific outposts might have been abandoned in preparation. Most (especially in Earth orbit) were probably destroyed outright during the fighting. And after the fighting was over, the survivors in space would either have returned to Earth using whatever escape craft they had available -- and returning to a devastated planet -- or else remained at their outposts, but without resupply, where they probably died.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Of course the US didn't create an internation org after the Spanish-American war, but after WWI there was a big push by President Wilson to create one, thus the League of Nations. But the US never joined that group... it wasn't until WWII that we did join one.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)