As some of you may have noticed, I have neglected my expanded shiplist for an inordinately long period of time. I haven't fully updated the Starfleet database and I never did get around to completing the Federation and Pre-Federation sections. I am going to try to revamp it a bit this summer, now that I've got a little time on my hands. ("Riiiight. Here he goes with the PROMISES again..." )
I am revising the format of the list a bit. I am finally giving up my unweildly position on the canonicity of the Encyclopedia, Tech Manuals, Magazine, etc, (Spikey and Dukkie will be immeasurably pleased, I'm sure ) and adopting the McReynolds system---that is to say, reclassifying these materials as "apocryphal" in the ecclesiastical sense of being documents that lie just outside the actual Canon, being of debated or uncertain authorship/authenticity/integrity. (Actually, I think I personally prefer "deuterocanonical," which has a bit of a more sympathetic cannotation to it, so that may end up being a further change at some point, so for now I'll use "apocryphal.")
Anyway, I've begun by sprucing up the Condensed shiplist and I've gotten through the updating of the Starfleet A page, so you can all get a gander at what I'm talking about.
Oh BTW, Creeping Death is in the process of switching servers, so that's why many of my links are down. All will be well again in the none-too-distant future, though, so fear not...
-MMoM Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
My suggestions:
USS AHWAHNEE NCC-2048
I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.
USS ATLANTI(S) NCC-40657
This ship is mentioned on a computer screen seen in "Conspiracy". Even if the name is not 100% certain, the registry is.
USS CHALLENGER NCC-2032
I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.
USS CONCORD (E) NCC-68711
According to StarTrek.Com, Concorde is the correct spelling for this ship.
USS CONSTITUTION NCC-1700
On my ship list, I don't list the registry. My reason is this-the only known and recorded source for the connection between the name 'Constitution' and 'NCC-1700' are works authored by Franz Joseph and later discredited by Gene Roddenberry. There is no recorded connection between the name and registry in the first series. In the post-discredition process, a starship bearing the registry 'NCC-1700' is seen in "Datalore". She bears no name. So, for my records, there are two ships: the USS Constitution with a registry preceding NCC-956 and an unnamed Connie with the registry NCC-1700.
USS COURAGEOUS NCC-1861
I see you are adding information from sketches and scripts. This ship is a sketch of a Soyuz Class starship located either in the Art of Star Trek or TNG: Continuing Missions. I don't see an issue in including her in a ship list and it's nice, I think, to have an additional name to the Soyuz Class.
USS DEFIANT NCC-75633
My opinion is stated on this ship.
USS EAGLE NCC-956
This is the second ship mentioned in the episode "Amok Time", not the 'Excalibur'.
USS ENDEAVOUR NCC-1718
How did you create this connection between name and registry?
USS ESSEX NCC-1697
Is the name supposed to be green? Is the registry supposed to be yellow? Is the class supposed to be gray?
USS FEDERATION NCC-2100
Your selection of yellow for the starships USS Hermes NCC-585, USS Ptolemy NCC-3801, and USS Saladin NCC-500 would seen to indicate your preference for these ships to be canonical. If so, then this ship, too, must be in yellow. She is shown briefly in the TSFS on a computer display.
USS INTREPID NCC-1631
The correct registry for this ship is NCC-1831.
USS LEXINGTON NCC-14427
This ship didn't appear in "Thine Own Self". Her succesor, the Nebula Lexington, did. Wouldn't it be easier to state her as a ship from the Encyclopedia and say she is a predecessor to the Nebula Lexington?
USS MAGELLAN NCC-3069
There appears to be a basic rule in Star Trek: canon overrules all other sources. In the battle plans to retake DS9, there are the 'shadows' of classes of ships engaged in the campaign. The Constellation is not among these classes. Ergo, the Magellan in the episode "Sacrifice of Angels" is not a Constellation. She could be of any one of the classes mentioned, just not a Constellation.
USS MELBOURNE NCC-62043
I happen to think there is only one Melbourne and she is Excelsior. The Nebula Melbourne I see as a nameless casuality in the battle.
USS PROMETHEUS NX-74913
I am of the camp which supports this connection, not the other connection.
USS RELATIVITY NCV-474439
This ship is missing from your list.
USS SCOVIL NCC-1598
I have the Scovil as Oberth Class based on a chart in TUC.
USS SHIKA MARU
In the encyclopedia, this ship, 'Shika Maru', is identified as a starship. Starship = USS.
USS SPRINGFIELD NCC-1963
I have this ship listed as Miranda Class based on a chart in TUC.
SERIES OF SHIPS NAMED AS YAMATO
On my list, I have six ships named USS Yamato. The first ship has registry NCC-1305, the next four have no registries, and the last has NCC-71807. This adheres to the canon facts.
NCC-K7
This is the registry for Deep Space Station K-7. A station is dissimiliar to a starship, so the inclusion of this registry is puzzling.
NCC-70231
On my lists, I have this ship listed. A shuttle bearing a registry similiar to this was seen in "Identity Crisis".
SHIPS IN 'WHISPERS'
You have listed several ships which may not be of Federation origion and may operate for the non-aligned governments. These are: G.S. 12, C.A.R. 54-D, C-57-D, I.T.A. Elmira, C.G.M. Gh'Aster, F.G.M.S. Gyt'Aerat, G.H.D. Per'ot, and G.C.S. Recio.
S.S. BEAGLE
Her class is 4.
KOBAYASHI MARU
Her class is 3.
S.S. MILAN NDT-50863
The official website has this ship listed as U.S.S. Milan.
XHOSA
In the encyclopedia, this ship has 'S.S.' attached to her name.
NCD-31775, YLT-3069
These are the registries of two Toron-type shuttle. They may be Federation registered.
E.C.S. FORTUNATE
On Ex Astra Scientia, the website author noticed this sequence of letters and numbers written on doors and other locations: 'ECS-2801'. He is of the opinion this could be a registry. I agree with him.
TEZRA
In the episode, this ship is identified as the first of her class. Most cases in Star Trek, a class is named after the first ship. This would be a logical inference here.
[ June 28, 2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: newark ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: My suggestions:
USS AHWAHNEE NCC-2048
Say what what now? You'd better look harder, because she's on both pages...
EDIT: Ah, now I see you had a whole post coming *after* that. My bad.
[ June 28, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Sorry about that premature post, and thanks for taking the time to look it all over. I'll take your points one at a time...
quote:Originally posted by newark: My suggestions:
USS AHWAHNEE NCC-2048
I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.
I would tend to agree, but that map has proved to be more trouble than it's worth and I'm not wholly comfortable with finalizing anything from it except the Eagle and Endeavour datapoints until we get a closer look at it. (If that ever happens...) However, the entry in the main body of the shiplist for the Ahwahnee includes this note:
"Based upon close examination of screencaptures from the film, the chart may have shown the ship to be an Excelsior-class vessel (which would make sense given the registry number) and also may have misspelled the name as 'Awahnee,' though until a clearer view of the document is made available, this cannot be verified."
quote:USS ATLANTI(S) NCC-40657
This ship is mentioned on a computer screen seen in "Conspiracy". Even if the name is not 100% certain, the registry is.
I'll have to check on this...
quote:USS CHALLENGER NCC-2032
I have this ship listed as Excelsior. This is based on the map shown in TUC.
Same response as for the Ahwahnee.
quote:USS CONCORD (E) NCC-68711
According to StarTrek.Com, Concorde is the correct spelling for this ship.
According to the script, it's Concord, (for the Revolutionary War battle site) and this is supported by the Encyclopedia and Worf's pronunciation of the name. Not to mention that, as a general rule, people at startrek.com = idiots. (Although, admittedly, the 'e' spelling also appeared in at least one place in the Encyclopedia as well.)
quote:USS CONSTITUTION NCC-1700
On my ship list, I don't list the registry. My reason is this-the only known and recorded source for the connection between the name 'Constitution' and 'NCC-1700' are works authored by Franz Joseph and later discredited by Gene Roddenberry. There is no recorded connection between the name and registry in the first series. In the post-discredition process, a starship bearing the registry 'NCC-1700' is seen in "Datalore". She bears no name. So, for my records, there are two ships: the USS Constitution with a registry preceding NCC-956 and an unnamed Connie with the registry NCC-1700.
Well a monitor in STIII, lifted from FJ's Tech Manual, shows the ship labeled NCC-1700 under the heading "CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER: Constitution-class Starships." That seems to imply that this is the prototype being displayed. And that's the same as the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy screens, too.
quote:USS COURAGEOUS NCC-1861
I see you are adding information from sketches and scripts. This ship is a sketch of a Soyuz Class starship located either in the Art of Star Trek or TNG: Continuing Missions. I don't see an issue in including her in a ship list and it's nice, I think, to have an additional name to the Soyuz Class.
It's a maybe...but as I recall the name and number are just from some SOTSF ship that the artist drew over to show what the Soyuz would look like.
quote:USS DEFIANT NCC-75633
My opinion is stated on this ship.
Yeah, I know...BUT THE FOOTAGE!
quote:USS EAGLE NCC-956
This is the second ship mentioned in the episode "Amok Time", not the 'Excalibur'.
No, the Excalibur and Endeavor are the ships from the "Amok Time" first-draft script. The Eagle is from the "Journey to Babel" draft along with the Essex. But you're right in pointing out that I forgot to make note of it either way. Fixed.
quote:USS ENDEAVOUR NCC-1718
How did you create this connection between name and registry?
It's from Greg Jein's T-Negative article where most of the other Connie registries from the Encyclopedia are drawn from. Since we've got that NCC-1718 and the name was in a script, I figured what the hell... (It's all in green anyway...)
quote:USS ESSEX NCC-1697
Is the name supposed to be green? Is the registry supposed to be yellow? Is the class supposed to be gray?
Yes, yes, and yes. Fixed, fixed, and fixed.
quote:USS FEDERATION NCC-2100
Your selection of yellow for the starships USS Hermes NCC-585, USS Ptolemy NCC-3801, and USS Saladin NCC-500 would seen to indicate your preference for these ships to be canonical. If so, then this ship, too, must be in yellow. She is shown briefly in the TSFS on a computer display.
Nope. And believe me, it think it would be SWEET if she were canon. But the display in question is only the dotted-line "under construction" pic and makes no mention of the name Federation or the NCC.
quote:USS INTREPID NCC-1631
The correct registry for this ship is NCC-1831.
No it isn't. The most recent examination of DVD screencaps has yielded the same number that Greg Jein's examination of film cells back in the 70s did: NCC-1631. See the 5th paragraph of this post, et al. I agree with the poster.
quote:USS LEXINGTON NCC-14427
This ship didn't appear in "Thine Own Self". Her succesor, the Nebula Lexington, did. Wouldn't it be easier to state her as a ship from the Encyclopedia and say she is a predecessor to the Nebula Lexington?
Possibly. That's one of the few things that's left me scratching my head about what to do with it. I'm as yet undecided.
quote:USS MAGELLAN NCC-3069
There appears to be a basic rule in Star Trek: canon overrules all other sources. In the battle plans to retake DS9, there are the 'shadows' of classes of ships engaged in the campaign. The Constellation is not among these classes. Ergo, the Magellan in the episode "Sacrifice of Angels" is not a Constellation. She could be of any one of the classes mentioned, just not a Constellation.
Interesting logic... Don't know whether I agree or not.
quote:USS MELBOURNE NCC-62043
I happen to think there is only one Melbourne and she is Excelsior. The Nebula Melbourne I see as a nameless casuality in the battle.
Again, I can't decide on how to best handle this issue. For now (though it's damned unwieldly) I leave them both.
quote:USS PROMETHEUS NX-74913
I am of the camp which supports this connection, not the other connection.
This note from the main body of my shiplist says it all:
"The dedication plaque and master systems display of the ship show a registry of NX-74913, which is inconsistent with the NX-59650 number seen clearly on the vessel�s hull in �Message in a Bottle.� The reason for this is that Mike Okuda of the Art Department created the plaque and display without knowing about the number generated by the Visual Effects Department. All official sources (Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Fact Files, Starship Spotter, and the official Star Trek website at www.startrek.com) seem to agree that the 59650 number, much more visible to viewers, is the more definitive. Even Rick Sternbach, the designer of the vessel, acknowledges this in an article in the March 2003 issue of Star Trek: The Magazine."
quote:USS RELATIVITY NCV-474439
This ship is missing from your list.
It's intentionally missing because the Relativity's dedication plaque says it was only the seventh ship to bear it's name. Since a change in the alpahbet is ruled out because the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are all present elsewhere on the plaque, I reason that it must be a change in the registry system that's to blame. I guess for some reason SF eventually stops issuing suffix-less regs altogether and starts each ship line off with -A.
[ June 28, 2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Part II, since the board is not liking me to post so much at once:
quote:USS SCOVIL NCC-1598
I have the Scovil as Oberth Class based on a chart in TUC.
*gives a very heavy sigh* THERE ARE NO OBERTHS ON THE OR CHART!!!!!
quote:USS SHIKA MARU
In the encyclopedia, this ship, 'Shika Maru', is identified as a starship. Starship = USS.
The ship is given no prefix in the Encyclopedia and is merely referred to as a "Federation vessel" in the episode, and this is how it should be. Maru is a Japanese suffix denoting a civilian craft. And it's Shiku Maru, BTW.
quote:USS SPRINGFIELD NCC-1963
I have this ship listed as Miranda Class based on a chart in TUC.
Again, same as with the Ahwahnee.
quote:SERIES OF SHIPS NAMED AS YAMATO
On my list, I have six ships named USS Yamato. The first ship has registry NCC-1305, the next four have no registries, and the last has NCC-71807. This adheres to the canon facts.
Ugh...headache...
quote:NCC-K7
This is the registry for Deep Space Station K-7. A station is dissimiliar to a starship, so the inclusion of this registry is puzzling.
So space stations have NCC registry numbers? You see the problem, I trust.
quote:NCC-70231
On my lists, I have this ship listed. A shuttle bearing a registry similiar to this was seen in "Identity Crisis".
Really? I've never heard that one before. Anyone got a screencap to back it up?
quote:SHIPS IN 'WHISPERS'
You have listed several ships which may not be of Federation origion and may operate for the non-aligned governments. These are: G.S. 12, C.A.R. 54-D, C-57-D, I.T.A. Elmira, C.G.M. Gh'Aster, F.G.M.S. Gyt'Aerat, G.H.D. Per'ot, and G.C.S. Recio.
Yeah, I considered that. But the captains of all of them have human names. (Smith, Adams, Jones, etc.)
quote:S.S. BEAGLE
Her class is 4.
KOBAYASHI MARU
Her class is 3.
I think these are "classes" ("Class III Neutronic Fuel Carrier" and "Class IV Stardrive Vessel") in the same sense that the Constitution is a "Class I Heavy Cruiser," not a specific class name of the design.
quote:S.S. MILAN NDT-50863
The official website has this ship listed as U.S.S. Milan.
Once again, people @ startrek.com = idiots.
quote:XHOSA
In the encyclopedia, this ship has 'S.S.' attached to her name.
No it doesn't.
quote:NCD-31775, YLT-3069
These are the registries of two Toron-type shuttle. They may be Federation registered.
No, one is Klingon-registered and the other is Yridian-registered...
quote:E.C.S. FORTUNATE
On Ex Astra Scientia, the website author noticed this sequence of letters and numbers written on doors and other locations: 'ECS-2801'. He is of the opinion this could be a registry. I agree with him.
I agree it's a possibility, but there are so many letter-number combinations on the interior sets of the Fortunate and Horizon...
quote:TEZRA
In the episode, this ship is identified as the first of her class. Most cases in Star Trek, a class is named after the first ship. This would be a logical inference here.
I don't know if the Tellarites use this system, considering the various other class name schemes we've seen on ENT. (Indeed, the "name of the first ship of the type becomes the class name" seems to be the exception rather than the rule in this era.)
Once again, thanks for the input. Sorry if it seems like I've just brushed aside many of your suggestions. I just have my own view on some things...
-MMoM Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Does anyone have a screen cap of this chart from ST:VI that's online or they can send me? I've been wanting to see this chart for a while now, but no one ever seems capable of producing screencaps of the chart, tho it gets quoted a lot....
Also, I can't access your site right now - it keeps timing out on me - but why are there no Oberth class ships on the list? Are you getting a bit prejudical in your old age, MMoM? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"According to the script, it's Concord, (for the Revolutionary War battle site) and this is supported by the Encyclopedia and Worf's pronunciation of the name."
There's a difference in pronunciation between "Concord/concord" and "Concorde"?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Concord" is pronounced "KONK-erd" (like "conquered") whereas "Concorde" is pronounced "KON-koord."
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Does anyone have a screen cap of this chart from ST:VI that's online or they can send me? I've been wanting to see this chart for a while now, but no one ever seems capable of producing screencaps of the chart, tho it gets quoted a lot....
Take some time and read through this thread, pretty much everything after the first page is centered on the OR chart. There's screencaps and animated reconstructions and lots of debate and other goodness. I know it gets long-winded, but try to read through the discussion that goes along with the pics, becuase it explains much and new points come to light throughout the thread.
quote:Also, I can't access your site right now - it keeps timing out on me -
That would probably be because of the server-switch I mentioned as being in progress. Do the two pages I linked to above come up?
quote:why are there no Oberth class ships on the list? Are you getting a bit prejudical in your old age, MMoM?
When you get through the thread I cited, you'll see caps of the chart. The third silhouette on the "in reserve" section of the chart is not---and, I repeat, NOT---an Oberth as Akira's animations suggest, but rather another Miranda.
BTW, there is also another graphic from TUC---a starship mission assignment list that gives information for the 7 ships from the OR chart (U.S.S. Ahwahnee NCC-2048, U.S.S. Challenger NCC-2032, U.S.S. Eagle NCC-956, U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-1895, U.S.S. Potemkin NCC-1657, U.S.S. Scovil NCC-1598, and U.S.S. Springfield NCC-1963) as well as 10 additional ships. (U.S.S. Constellation NX-1974, U.S.S. Emden NCC-1856, U.S.S. Helin NCC-1692, U.S.S. John Muir NCC-1732, U.S.S. Kongo NCC-1710, U.S.S. Korolev NCC-2014, U.S.S. Lantree NCC-1837, U.S.S. Oberth NCC-602, [now there's an Oberth for ya ] U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371, and U.S.S. Whorfin NCC-1024.)
Nobody has ever been able to get a halfway decent screencap of this second list because it's too far away from the screen in the film. However, we know the information that was on it because Mike Okuda (who made the display in the first place) had it on record at some point and turned it over to Bjo Trimble for her Star Trek Concordance, where it was reproduced.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Nebula-Lexington was said to be on a deep space mission for the last three years, which would include the time of the TNG episode. I don't like to contradict the encyclopedia either, but Grandmaster Okuda didn't know/remember it. If I had to drop a ship from my list, the Excelsior-Lexington would be my first choice. You know what I mean.
Magellan: The ships on that chart were: Galaxy, Nebula, Excelsior, Defiant, Akira, Miranda, Norway, Sabre. Neither a Norway nor a Nebula was present in that fleet (onscreen), but I did see several Steamrunners, al class not listed on that display. Ergo: There could have been a Constellation because the display did not reflect the actual complement of the fleet. (Hey, maybe it was a scroll-down menu and we just saw the first few classes. )
There. Are. TWO. Melbournes. (see below)
After my final math exams I can just say: --- (Okuda + Sternbach) > CGI-company Prometheus/(NX-59650) = crap [(NX-59650) + Brittain + Jenolin + X] = mistake --- Maybe the 59xxx-number was a fake to hide the ship's true identity (which is, BTW, what I believe happened to the Melbournes and Defiants). There could have been another Prometheus with exactly that number (probably the predecessor of the Nebula-Prometheus from DS9) pulled back into service to fool the Tal'Shiar and Obsidian Order and Ferengi-CIA. Just concider it a possibility.
I always assumed the Yamato did have in fact two registries, NCC-1305-E (honoring the NCC-1305 Yamato) and NCC-71xxx, its 'Product ID'. Of course, I also assume the Enterprise-D and any other Enterprise did have a 'normal' registry before someone decided to name the ship "Enterprise".
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Here's my two cent ante:
----------------------------
USS LEXINGTON: From everything said in the conversation between Bashir and Lense, the Lexington (61832) was out in the boonies exploring/cataloging previously unexplored solar systems in deep space for the first time. Its' mission would have started prior to 2369, most likely sometime between New Years 2368 and the time we see Bashir arrive at DS9 in early/mid-2369, as it would seem their assignments coincided, if not, Lenses preceeded Bashirs. All of which takes place a solid year before the Enterprise-D's rendezvous with the other Lexington (14427) which seemed to be conducting an altogether different mission. Why would a Nebbie be ferrying medical supplies for a colony when its out exploring the outer realms of the Federations' sphere of influence?
That leaves open the possibility of both Lexington's coexisting simultaneously. It goes the same with the Melbourne and the Farragut and their damn Excelsior-Nebula-connectivity curse! Either way the evidence with the Lexington seems to point it in two distinct directions.
Also, for those who do take the "Official Site" for anything close to absolute, keep in mind that is says both:
"Not to be confused with the Excelsior-class ship of the same name, or the Constitution-class vessel of the previous century."
and
"Not to be confused with the Nebula-class ship of the same name, or the Constitution-class vessel of the previous century."
----------------------------
SS XHOSA Im not sure if it really qualifies here. The ship was initially described as a 'Petrarian freighter' (or under Petrarian registry) as that was who she was employed by. Later when she moved to DS9 she it was registered for/by/under a Bajoran registry. Captain Yates may have been a Federation citizen, and she may or maynot own that vessel (or have stock in it), making its' true alignment not-necessarily Federation, as she seems to be somewhat of a freelance freighter captain.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:NCC-70231
On my lists, I have this ship listed. A shuttle bearing a registry similiar to this was seen in "Identity Crisis".
Really? I've never heard that one before. Anyone got a screencap to back it up?
I posted a few screencaps of it in the thread about shuttles a couple of months ago. We couldn't make out the registry properly, but maybe it was easier for newark to see on a TV.
The Xhosa was "a small freighter owned by Petarian interests." That says nothing about official star-of-registry, homeport, etc. This is akin to something like, say, Carnival Cruise Lines. The ships homeport in Florida, are corporately run from the US, but are registered in the Bahamas. Most commercial shipping lines do this; gods help us all if Liberia or Panama ever decide to do an overseas heavylift invasaion. The trade world would be destroyed.
Furthermore, did we ever see Xhosa again after Kasidy came back from prisan? Because if we didn't there's a possibility that she reused the name for a new ship of her own, or that she ran for the Bajorans.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The reasoning behind including the Xhosa in the Federation list involves the fact that it had a TOS-Starfleet-style dedication plaque and computer console screens. I've heard it frequently speculated that the Xhosa may have been an old SF surplus ship that was sold off to Yates or her Petarian employers, and it sounds reasonable to me that it at least originally (long before we saw it on DS9) was a Federation vessel...
-MMoM Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Adding to the argument against a Constellation being in the operation to retake DS9, there are the pages of starships at the end of the DS9 manual which show the classes of starships used. These include the: Akira, Defiant, Excelsior, Galaxy, Miranda, Norway, Saber, Steamrunner, and the kitbashes. So, that is two sources which don't show the Constellation Class in use for the retaking of DS9.
I am very hesitant to accept visual data. If I did as some are doing, I would have to accept the following:
Ships bearing the registry of previous vessels. The first example I know of this is the USS Hood, an Excelsior Class starship which cerried the registry of NX-2000.
Ships whose class is wrong and yet must be right. Can we say USS Potemkin?
Ships dying a similiar fate twice or more times. The USS Majestic was destroyed twice.
NAR-
As I was compiling my list, I noticed a pattern in the three ships which bear this registry prefix and are registered with the UFP. These three ships are:
(1.) Civilian operated (2.) Bear the markings of Starfleet ships
I think the registry prefix NAR- is used to denote Starfleet ships which have been shipped to the surplus fleet for re-sale. Once re-sold, the ships are given new names and registries.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'd like to throw in an interesting fact.
In DS9: "The Abandoned", right after Odo mentions the Defiant and the USS Constellation, the scene cuts to a VFX shot of the Defiant and the Yeager model (or was it just the Yeager model?). Anyway, it might indicate that this USS Constellation was a Yeager.
But preferably not, of course. The ship's too UGLY to have such a nice name.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Starfleet was seen operating those Xhosa-type vessels, too (and I don't mean other Antares-type freighters, I mean exactly this variant). The (dilithium?) feighter from Voyager's "Author, Author". The Xhosa being a Starfleet or Ex-Starfleet ship is not that unbelievable. I don't want to get into the whole Antares-discussion again, but the TOS-style interior could indicate that the original Antares was a ship of the same class.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: As I was compiling my list, I noticed a pattern in the three ships which bear this registry prefix and are registered with the UFP. These three ships are:
(1.) Civilian operated (2.) Bear the markings of Starfleet ships
I think the registry prefix NAR- is used to denote Starfleet ships which have been shipped to the surplus fleet for re-sale. Once re-sold, the ships are given new names and registries.
Or they could be ships of the Auxiliary Reserve, sort of like the USNS ships of today. Technically military vessels, but crewed purely by civilians. Granted, a lot of those civilians are usually retired ex-Navy, but still...
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Phlox: I posted a few screencaps of it in the thread about shuttles a couple of months ago. We couldn't make out the registry properly, but maybe it was easier for newark to see on a TV.
The link in your posts in that thread don't work....
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
To newark: the DS9 TM does *not* show a Steamrunner at all, neither in the ship specs list at the end of the book nor in the reproduction of the "Operation Return" tactical chart.
Since the Steamrunners featured in all DS9 battles in a major way, I must consider those "legend boxes" in the various charts as not exhaustive.
Perhaps the legend boxes would list ships according to their broader role, and the ones shown would be the primary ship-to-ship combatants? The Steamrunners could be grouped under "planetary assault forces", along with their Constellation escorts (we did hear USS Constellation escorting a troop shipment in "Waltz").
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
I was curious if the NCC or NX registry number is assigned when construction of the space frame begins, or the starship program is in the research and development stages, or when the starship is actually commissioned and enters service?
I noticed from reading through Jane's Fighting Ships that a fleet penant number is usually assigned to a ship when construction for the ship is approved or ordered, not when a keel is laid, or when the ship is commissioned or enters service.
So perhaps before the Nebula-class Prometheus was built, Starfleet approved construction of an experimental spaceframe numbered NX-59650, but for some reason the project was discontinued or put on hold before the starship was completed and the project files were sealed or space frame was moth-balled or placed in some sort of storage.
Then the Nebula-class U.S.S. Prometheus was commissioned, served in Starfleet, and then was lost or decommisioned.
Then work on the NX-59650 resumed and was completed so that the craft could start space trials of its experimental frame or systems. When the experimental craft was commissioned, Starfleet Command could have given the starship the name Prometheus in honor of the Nebula-class ship that was lost?
After reading several volumes of Jane's Fighting Ships for different years, it appears that some ships may have their names changed several times during construction, but the penant number always remains the same. If memory serves the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier U.S.S. United States was renamed to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. Also, this happened with a large Russian aircraft carrier that had its name changed at least three times before it was commissioned, I think the name of the ship now is Admiral Kuznetsov, before it was known as the Tblisi.
This may be one way to come up with a rational explanation for the Okuda/VFX miscommunication regarding the registry number of thePrometheus-class U.S.S. Prometheus?
Further, this could answer the question of whether a ship with a lower registry number is actually an older ship, for example the 6XXXX region of the Akira class registries. Although they are considered new ships, it doesn't mean that Starfleet started with a blank sheet of paper or finish work that had been started years earlier.
Perhaps you could give the registry number NX-74913 to the Prometheus-class U.S.S. Garuda, which was mentioned in a Deep Space 9 episode script but never seen on film or mentioned in the filmed dialog?
Although canon purists would reject this possible solution, it could be used by role-players to explain the low registry number of the thePrometheus-class U.S.S. Prometheus or the low registry numbers of other "new" starships.
Comments?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: NAR-
As I was compiling my list, I noticed a pattern in the three ships which bear this registry prefix and are registered with the UFP. These three ships are:
(1.) Civilian operated (2.) Bear the markings of Starfleet ships
I think the registry prefix NAR- is used to denote Starfleet ships which have been shipped to the surplus fleet for re-sale. Once re-sold, the ships are given new names and registries.
I agree w/the thinking that they're more like USNS ships of modern day. They're technically USN chartered ships operated by "contract" civilians. Perhaps StarFleet does something similar instead of just giving up or selling them. After all, Keiko was a civilian serving on board Enterprise-D when Obrien met her, right? So there is a precedence.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm all for the USNS analogy, although it should be stressed that the missions of the NAR ships are often even less "military" in nature than those of the regular Starfleet. It shouldn't be thought that NAR ships would be more "military" than yer random merchantman, then.
As for that pennant number thing, the USN does stay faithful to a number once it's assigned. The only major recent reshuffling was with the Kidd destroyers, and only because those weren't even supposed to be numbered originally - they were built strictly for export. But other navies change the pennant codes frequently. In the Russian navy, the codes actually used to reflect the assignment of the vessel, rather than her (or his, in Russian) identity.
Granted, Starfleet registry numbers supposedly don't change a lot. But perhaps that of the Yamato did? Perhaps she was cleared for a glorious suffixed "exploration registry" for a tour of duty outside UFP borders, but that got revoked when she went to RNZ patrol duty.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks:
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Phlox: I posted a few screencaps of it in the thread about shuttles a couple of months ago. We couldn't make out the registry properly, but maybe it was easier for newark to see on a TV.
The link in your posts in that thread don't work.... [/QB]
Yeah, it's an old thread, I took the pictures down. You can see the registry number at least.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: NAR-
As I was compiling my list, I noticed a pattern in the three ships which bear this registry prefix and are registered with the UFP. These three ships are:
(1.) Civilian operated (2.) Bear the markings of Starfleet ships
I think the registry prefix NAR- is used to denote Starfleet ships which have been shipped to the surplus fleet for re-sale. Once re-sold, the ships are given new names and registries.
Personally I think of NAR as being the registry code for ships that are from, or registered to Earth, or the Sol System in general. This is mainly because the MARIPOSA and the SEATTLE (both pre-federation ship) had an NAR number and it was described as "UN registry". (See the "Up the long Ladder" displays for reference)
Another vessel known to sport the NAR prefix is the (impulse only) Executive Shuttle glimpsed at in ST:VI (SD1-03), I seriously doubt that an ex-starfleet shuttle would be used a a civilian transport. More likely it's just an Earth/Sol bound civillian vessel.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
I concur with Reverend. Think of civil aviation here in the United States where the license number of an civilian aircraft is painted in large letters and numbers on the tail, this also occurs on commercial passenger jets as well.
I would suspect that all civilian starships are required to be licensed and registered, and this license/registry number must be displayed prominently.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: I concur with Reverend. Think of civil aviation here in the United States where the license number of an civilian aircraft is painted in large letters and numbers on the tail, this also occurs on commercial passenger jets as well.
US Military aircraft also require the registry number be written in large enough to read numbers. Just so's ya know.
quote:I would suspect that all civilian starships are required to be licensed and registered, and this license/registry number must be displayed prominently.
Which fits in well w/what we've seen in regards to even shuttlecraft. All shuttlecraft that we've seen on TV or in the movies has a very distinctive registry number on it, usually owing to the "mother ship" or home base it operates off of.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
On the Guardian of Forever web site, I found the following list of prefixes with definitions:
Registry Codes and Ship Types
***************
NCC - Federation, Starfleet, Active service USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, TOS
NX - Federation, Starfleet, Experimental USS Excelsior, NX-2000, ST III:TSFS
BDR - Federation, non-Starfleet, Transport SS Santa Maria, BDR-529
NCV - Federation, Starfleet, Time-ship USS Relativity, NCV 474439
Has any found out if anyone connected in the production of Star Trek has given, or written, a definitive answer for what these letter prefixs mean and how they are used?
Anything about this in the long-running Star Trek: The Magazine?
I know the story about the airplance painted with NC-1701 or NC1701 that Matt Jefferies or Gene Roddenberry saw, and they thought it looked neat and decided to add an extra C and paint this on the Enterprise model. I have heard so many variations of this story over the years that I don't know which one is true anymore or if the whole thing is apocraphyl.
Also, I have seen about half a dozen definitions for the acronym NCC such as Navigational Command Code, Naval Construction Contract, Naval Command Code, and Naval Construction Code among others. Has any source, that we can trust, given us a definitive answer?
Has Mike Okida, Rick Sternbach, or anyone else involved with the shows, given us a definitve answer for which letter registry prefixs are in use in the Federation and what each means. Are they acronyms, or are they just letter combinations like trying to figure out the three letter prefix in state or provincial license plates? Guessing, I am reasonable confident that the X means experimental, but the meaning of the other letters is anyone's guess.
Let's keep the discussion away from speculation, but centered on licensed sources of information. If you reply, please give the source and page number.
Can we cross our fingers and hope that this will be discussed in the fourth edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia? And put an end to years of debate and discussion?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Below is a list of registry prefixes. I am assuming they are used by the Federation.
AS-
Aeroshuttles.
BDR-
Erewhon Class transports.
NAR-
PRE-2161 New United Nations registry. POST-2161 Used for ships formerly employed in Starfleet. This includes 'SD-103'. When I looked closely at the ventral side of the ship, I noticed the Starfleet pennant.
NCC-
This registry prefix is used for starships and runabouts. And, in at least one case, for a space station.
NCD-
Iyarran Toron-type shuttle.
NDT-
Transports.
NFT-
Whorfin Class transports.
NSP-
Ships of the Vulcan Merchant Marines.
NX-
Pre-2161 Used to identify the Enterprise and her sister ship as NX Class starships. Post-2161 Experimental Starfleet prototype ships.
NXP-
Prototype of the prototype. These are the study models used for the design and construction of the prototype.
OV-
Used by the nation-state United States of America, Earth, Sol System. Orbital shuttles.
TR-
ASRVs employed aboard the USS Enterprise-E.
VS-
Vulcan Shuttles.
YLT-
Yridian transports.
I have also noted SC- and RS- which are, I think, abbreviated forms of the full name: Starfleet Command to SC and Relay Station to RS.
I am unclear if CV-65 mentioned in an article in Star Trek: The Magazine was a registry. Thus, it was not included.
I noted some registries which were mistakenly used for other ships. I am wondering if after correction if these registries are legitimate.
For instance, the USS Grissom of "Hollow Toys" was given a registry of NCC-59314. This was later corrected. However, was the registry NCC-59314 still valid for an Oberth Class starship?
Do you think the same applies for NCC-1831 for a Constitution Class starship, NCC-1937 for a Miranda Class starship, and NCC-10523 for a Renaissance Class starship.
Adding to the list of registry prefixes, there was the NCV- which denoted time ships. I can't believe I forgot this one. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: >SNIKT!< I am unclear if CV-65 mentioned in an article in Star Trek: The Magazine was a registry. Thus, it was not included.
That seems to be a "bastardized" version of the registry for the contemporary USN nuclear powered aircraft carrier Enterprise. The appropriate registry should be CVN-65, tho.
quote:I noted some registries which were mistakenly used for other ships. I am wondering if after correction if these registries are legitimate.
For instance, the USS Grissom of "Hollow Toys" was given a registry of NCC-59314. This was later corrected. However, was the registry NCC-59314 still valid for an Oberth Class starship?
Do you know why it was changed? And "corrected" why, exactly?
quote:Do you think the same applies for NCC-1831 for a Constitution Class starship, NCC-1937 for a Miranda Class starship, and NCC-10523 for a Renaissance Class starship.
I don't think I understand what you're getting at here. Were there other ships w/those registries that were later changed? Can you give better defined answers, please? I'm totally confused by what you're asking here....
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Let us take an example. In the first encyclopedia, the USS Grissom mentioned in "The Most Toys" was an Oberth Class Scout with the registry of NCC-59314. For subsequent editions, the USS Grissom was an Excelsior Class Explorer with the registry NCC-42857.
I see no difficulty in incorporating an Oberth Class Scout with the registry of NCC-59314 into my list. Though the name is wrong, the rest of the data for this ship may be correct. Other ships I have considered are:
1. Daedalus Class Starship, NCC-235 2. Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser, NCC-1831 3. Miranda Class Medium Cruiser, NCC-1937 4. Renaissance Class Starship, NCC-10523 5. Oberth Class Scout, NCC-59314 6. Oberth Class Scout, NCC-59983
We are working from Mr. Okuda's thinking on the matter. He may corrected certain datum to match more closely the canon facts for an individual ship; however, I don't see how this can invalidate the datum listed above.
I hope this clears the matter a little more.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
In case you still don't understand what he's saying, Griff, I'll elaborate some more.
In order to get his point, you need to be familiar with the original (1994) edition of Mike and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia. It contained several datapoints that were different from those in the later (1997, 1999) editions of the book:
As mentioned, the second U.S.S. Grissom is listed as an Oberth-class vessel with a registry of NCC-59314. (Only in the shiplist, however. The main entry for the vessel gave the familiar Excelsior designation and NCC-42857.)
The U.S.S. Hornet was listed with a registry number of NCC-10523 rather than the correct NCC-45231. (Again, shiplist only. The main entry gave correct number.)
The reverse is true of the U.S.S. Saratoga from TVH, which is listed as the correct NCC-1867 in the shiplist and the erroneous NCC-1937 in the main entry. (This error, unlike most of the others, was not corrected later and survived through the rest of the book's incarnations.)
Another error that has persisted is the listing of the U.S.S. Intrepid as NCC-1831 rather than the correct NCC-1631.
The U.S.S. Crazy Horse was listed as a Cheyenne-class vessel rather than an Excelsior.
The later editions generated a few errors as well:
The U.S.S. Carolina is listed in places as both NCC-189 and NCC-235, although arguably neither one is "correct" given that the ship is most likely not a Daedalus-class vessel as the book claims.
The U.S.S. Raman is listed as NCC-59983 rather than the correct NCC-29487.
The U.S.S. Biko is listed in the shiplist as an Olympic-class vessel, although this is obviously just a typo for "Oberth."
Personally, I don't think I agree with newark here. These erroneous datapoints are simply that---errors. OTOH, if you really think about it, it's obvious that there must have been vessels with those numbers at some point. I mean, think about it this way: The very fact that the U.S.S. Sao Paulo has a registry of NCC-75633 implies that there have been ships with NCCs 01 through 75632. So of course there have been NCCs 235, 1831, 1937, 10253, 59314, and 59983. However, we don't list them on our shiplists because they've never been seen or mentioned on the show, just as we don't list all the other numbers that we all *know* must have existed.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Perhaps you could give the registry number NX-74913 to the Prometheus-class U.S.S. Garuda, which was mentioned in a Deep Space 9 episode script but never seen on film or mentioned in the filmed dialog?
I realize you were just trying to make a point, and I like the reasoning of your post, but I have to be slightly nitpicky here and point out that the Garuda is called a "Prometheus-class ship" in the script, it is obvious from the "(stock from 'Second Sight')" clarification that the author meant a Nebula-class vessel, as he was simply referring to the class of vessel that the U.S.S. Prometheus NCC-71201 was.
-MMoM Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
The main reason I disagree with the "number assigned before construction" theory concerning the Prometheus is that we know the registry number of USS Galaxy and its successors, which are very close.
This is not consistent with an extremely long development period for the Galaxy Class, and would suggest a design/construction/testing time for the Galaxy of about 2 weeks.
Oh, and I'm not too happy with even reading the official ST website, as it seems to suggest that the prototype for the Intrepid Class was an Excelsior. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, it could be that Starfleet never built a prototype for the Galaxy class. Not in the sense of "a ship built before the series production vessels to see if series production is viable".
I mean, prototypes for ships are prohibitively expensive in the real world. Either you build the ship class, or then you don't. There's no "Let's try with one, and see if we like it" to it.
Sure, it often pays to order just a limited number of ships first, and then give thumbs up for a second batch if everything goes fine. But it's not worth the while to create a shipbuilding apparatus for just one prototype, and then discard it when the prototype fails, or even let it idle while the prototype is undergoing tests. When the first ship is launched, the keel for the second should be laid immediately.
Aircraft can be prototyped. Even though they, too, often require a specific "building apparatus" to be created, the expenses of creating a dud plane and the associated dud apparatus are far less than those of creating a ship that nobody wants.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
In the real world, for a national government that controls a small portion of a single planet, maybe it is prohibitive.
However, for an interstellar federation spanning hundreds of member planets and thousands of colonies, and with no real budgetary constraints, attempting to build a flagship class planned to be in service for decades, it would seem to be more sensible.
And we have seen prototypes, like the Defiant, Excelsior, and even NX-01.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Yet these vessels seem to have gotten successors pretty rapidly after the class ship was launched, NCC-wise and (apart perhaps for the Excelsior, if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there) timeline-wise.
The Defiant would have the best excuse for being an experimental one-off originally, of course: she's so tiny she can afford to be a dud.
OTOH, for an organization that has all the time and money it needs for testing, Starfleet seems pretty aimless in its procurement policy. Why are there dozens of ship classes that appear identical in role and equipment?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: In case you still don't understand what he's saying, Griff, I'll elaborate some more.
In order to get his point, you need to be familiar with the original (1994) edition of Mike and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia. It contained several datapoints that were different from those in the later (1997, 1999) editions of the book: >SNIKT!<
Ah! OK Thanks, MMoM! I appreciate the clarification, as I was indeed lost as to what newark was saying.
I've got the 1994 printing of STE, tho haven't looked at it in forever. W/your bring those errors up, I do now recall seeing several of those errors/revisions when I first got the hardback version in '98(?) tho forgot about them.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Yet these vessels seem to have gotten successors pretty rapidly after the class ship was launched, NCC-wise and (apart perhaps for the Excelsior, if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there) timeline-wise.
>SNIP!<
Huh? Back up a minute, please. "if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there"?!?
When was this ever mentioned? I've seen several screen caps of the ST:III Spacedock scene that shows one of the Excelsior prototype models in the background. However, the one shown is obviously not Excelsior class ship. I've never heard any mention of any additional ships of that class showing in ST:IV, tho. Got access to some screen caps?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
To come back to those prefixes, if I remember correctly, the AR numbers for Aeroshuttles were production numbers, and not registries. I assume the Aeroshuttles are numbered like other shuttles.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Huh? Back up a minute, please. "if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there"?!?
When was this ever mentioned? I've seen several screen caps of the ST:III Spacedock scene that shows one of the Excelsior prototype models in the background. However, the one shown is obviously not Excelsior class ship. I've never heard any mention of any additional ships of that class showing in ST:IV, tho. Got access to some screen caps?
Well apparently some fanboy went through the TSFS (or was it TVH?) scenes and decided that one ship couldn't account for all the different angles we saw the Excelsior from in the film. SO they reasoned that there must have been at least TWO Excelsiors in SpaceDock at the time...
Personally, I think this is complete bunk, but that's just me.
Oh, and BTW, it's actually this study model of the Enterprise as re-designed by Ralph McQuarrie for the planned Star Trek film Planet of the Titans back in the 70s (this was before they decided to do a second series, Star Trek: Phase II, which would ironically later get turned back into The Motion Picture) that appears in the background in STIII.
-MMoM Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:"Star Trek film Planet of the Titans"
Whoa! I've been around the block a few times but never heard of this before!
quote:The Excelsior
It seems perfectly reasonable for the Excelsior to be a prototype for such a long period of time. The movies III-V are only spaced-out (haha-get it?) by a couple years at most. The Excelsior was experimenting with a crazy new warp engine platform altogether, probably involoving a hellacious amount of time and resources and I am more than sure SF ran every test in the book on her 5 or 6 times before they declared her a dud. For that matter even the NX-01 is beginning its 3rd year as 'the one and only' of its kind, as it too is a radical step up from its predecessors.
Also, this wacky 'multiple Excelsior theory' is completely cow-udder bullshit. A superb example of what the world was like before internet porn!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The McQuarrie Enterprises are tres sexy, IMO
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Well apparently some fanboy went through the TSFS (or was it TVH?) scenes and decided that one ship couldn't account for all the different angles we saw the Excelsior from in the film. SO they reasoned that there must have been at least TWO Excelsiors in SpaceDock at the time...
Personally, I think this is complete bunk, but that's just me.
Sounds like it to me, as well.
quote:Oh, and BTW, it's actually this study model of the Enterprise as re-designed by Ralph McQuarrie for the planned Star Trek film Planet of the Titans back in the 70s (this was before they decided to do a second series, Star Trek: Phase II, which would ironically later get turned back into The Motion Picture) that appears in the background in STIII.
Same ship seen in this vidcap from ST:III. I initially forgot that I had been in a discussion at another forum and someone there had vidcap capabilities, but no host for the pic, so I volunteered, posted it on 5 Nov, 2002, and still have the image on my AOL servers. Goes along nicely w/my philosphy of "never throw anything away!"
Anyhow, this image was lightening in Adobe PhotoDeluxe so that you can more clearly see that this is the McQuarrie design you mention above. Guess that makes it canon, too, huh...? At least, more canon than the "two Excelsiors idea" floated in the theory you mention above. Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Yeah, we had a discussion on that ship in Spacedock too as well. It was before you came here, though I don't recall when he had it. That other forum could have had that discussion before one of us here independently found out about it. Initially we all thought it was a doctored-up pic until we checked our tapes and DVDs and confirmed it was real. Incidentally, I think it was around the same time we had our discussion on that freighter/ship in Spacedock as well.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: NAR-
PRE-2161 New United Nations registry. POST-2161 Used for ships formerly employed in Starfleet. This includes 'SD-103'. When I looked closely at the ventral side of the ship, I noticed the Starfleet pennant.
Where? All I can see on the underside of the SD1-03 shuttle are three red stripes. Plus the side of the shuttle clearly displays the Federation seal and the words "UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS", no mention or hint of Starfleet service from what I can see.
I stand by my assertion that NAR is simply a registry code for civilian ships from earth or just the Sol System in general. It's the only consistent explanation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: [QB] Yet these vessels seem to have gotten successors pretty rapidly after the class ship was launched, NCC-wise and (apart perhaps for the Excelsior, if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there) timeline-wise.
The US makes new top secret aircraft by building one flight-ready plane and two or even three`copies at differing stages of completion. If the tests go smoothly, one of the copies will be given more strenous tests (often including the plane's destruction as a materials breaking strain test). Excelsior could have been starfleet's completed ship for the Transwarp trials while a few spaceframes were nearing completion. It cold also explain why there was a Excelsior variant so shortly after the class' inception.
quote: The Defiant would have the best excuse for being an experimental one-off originally, of course: she's so tiny she can afford to be a dud.
The Defiant was built in a time of percieved desperation for Starfleet. They'd taken a MAJOR loss to a threat that could have sent another Cube at any time.
quote: Why are there dozens of ship classes that appear identical in role and equipment?
That's like asking why the navy has dozens of ship classes for the same function: varaitions on a theme is the key to improving your fleet and add new technologies/ procedures without recalling older ships or introducing new tech that current crews are unfamilliar with.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: That's like asking why the navy has dozens of ship classes for the same function
The answer being they don't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure they do: defense.
Or in starfleet's case: Exploration.
Variations on a general theme is the nature of any navy. Really the navies of today have four general classes: Carriers, Submarines, Cruisers and support vessels. Any of today's navy ships can be slotted into these general catagories just like terms like "explorer" could mean both the Galaxy and Constalation classes without any real conflict.
While it's possible to whip up names for any of the hundreds of variants and sub-classes used for specific roles, in the greater scheme, the overall goal of the organization remains the same.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not clear on what you're getting at. I read your earlier post as claiming that the US Navy has many interchangable ship classes, a claim that so far as I can determine is simply not true. A Spruance does not do what an Arleigh Burke does, and so on.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm only stating that the overall goal is the same even when they're doing diffrent roles to achieve it.
The goal of starfleet is exploration so all the classes are really used to achieve this overall goal in some capacity, even if it's in a supporting role.
Starfleet really does have the interchangability (due to technological advances) that the Navy of today could not have. We're crossing our wires her somewhere in the semantics.
My point is that all the smaller parts (ships) are serving a single, greater purpose.
And that sleep is not to be taken for granted, it seems.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I stand by my assertion that NAR is simply a registry code for civilian ships from earth or just the Sol System in general. It's the only consistent explanation.
...except that the USS Vico was seen with both an NAR registry AND Starfleet emblems...
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
S.S. Vico, NAR-18834, Oberth Class
Break it down now:
Federation research vessel (based on its mission & class)
Federation civilian registry (based on its designation/registry...S.S./NAR)
Likely retired Starfleet vessel (based on its class and on the age of its class)
At the time assigned out of Starbase 514. (based on the dialog)
Based on this information acquired from the ep, the encyclopedia and the "official" website we get what seems to be:
A former SF vessel, retired and possibly donated or bequeathed to civilians, and given a non-Starfleet specific registry.
The best example that comes to mind is the joint effort made between SF and the Federation in 'Project Genesis'. In much the same way, the Vico could have been working with SF in some sort of joint operation like the Regula I Station (aka SS Vico) operated in the interests of the Federation and in cooperation with the Reliant (aka SB 514) but still independant enough from SF to conduct the research at its own discretion.
As to specifically why the roles are reversed in this cooperation (a civilian vessel and SF base -vs- a SF vessel and a civilian base) is beyond me, perhaps each situation varys. Whichever the case, the case being the 3 NAR registries that come to mind, it would seem that they are SF vessels or perhaps formerly SF vessels run by Federation civilians independant of OR in the interest of Starfleet Command.
After all the math is done, the remainders seem to point at:
Raven = U.S.S. w/ NAR = SF vessel reassigned or on a temporary loan to Fed. civilians and re-registered.
In these two cases, it just so happened to be science vessels in queston, and since SF is scientific-exploration oriented and the Fed. Sci. Council is scientific-exploration oriented they coordinate there efforts on numerous levels while working toward the same goal. Compare this to the Prometheus working with Prof. Seyetik, it is understandable why this specific joint operation still remains primarily under SF control. I cannot see SF loaning out a Nebbie to Fed. Scientists, due to both is value and the maintainance and operation demands its requires. With civilian morons at the helm, an opposing force could easily bag themselves a nice prize without much effort. The Raven and Vico, in the same respect, are a lot less of a hot commodity and therefore SF is likely less hesitant to donate or loan out a few of these to is Fed. research counterparts.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
...I agree with NAR being a cilvilian registry, but since they went to the bother of changing the model to reflect NAR, what explanation are we left with that Starfleet emblems still adorn the Vico?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Possibly to show it was engaged on Federation buisiness rather than that a private individual or company or a member world. Or the captain might just like the paint scheme. Or it's used at displays in the same way ex-military aircraft owned by civilians take part in modern airshows?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Concerning the Navy's use of various classes of ships (especially those arguing for one class/one purpose), I'd suggest that you guys take a look at the USN's website lists for active and [http://www.nvr.navy.mil/oldclass.htm]inactive[/url] vessel classifications. They've got plenty of various uses -- and the US Navy specializes. Sure, most of the high-profile ships like the frigates, cruisers, and aircraft carriers today can handle a few different purposes... but not too many. A Galaxy-class starship, on the other hand, could probably handle most -- if not all -- of the various purposes in that list (adapted for interstellar equivalents, of course). That's what it's designed for.
But even if you've got a jack-of-all-trades starship, there's still the question of efficiency, optimized operation, and use of materials. Not to mention technological advancements!
If the USN wanted, they could still be running those old battleships around the world -- but the fact is that they're obsolete. To borrow a non-canon example, of what use would be one of Masao's old Farragut-class specialized orbital bombardment ships from the Romulan War be after the phasers were invented with their longer range and stronger power? The Constitution-class ships were considered incredibly lavish for their time, but they still packed in 430 people onto a ship that's got less internal volume than Voyager, which only had 150 or so. And of course, as time goes on, different missions develop, different ideas come into use, different needs arise.
I don't think there are really all that many different variations of starship out there -- it just seems that way because there are so many older ships that stay in use for a long time. I mean really... would anyone seriously consider a 1930's battleship to be a serious contender in combat today? Some of the starships we saw in TNG and DS9 could easily have been 60 or 70 years old! Which just goes to show that there's more opportunity for variation with the advanced technology and capabilities they've got.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I stand by my assertion that NAR is simply a registry code for civilian ships from earth or just the Sol System in general. It's the only consistent explanation.
...except that the USS Vico was seen with both an NAR registry AND Starfleet emblems...
I don't see that as a problem. I freely accept that the Vico could well have been a former Starfleet vessel, but this fact would have little if any bearing on it's registry. It was simply recommissioned as a civilian science vessel and registered to an agency on Earth, which seams reasonable since earth seams to be the home to just about every Federation institution that we know of.
The theory that NAR is exclusive to former SF ships based on the presence of a Starfleet pennant on the Vico falls to pieces when you consider that the Raven did not have Starfleet markings and that it did appear to have what could well have been civilian markings. This is also the case with the "Executive Shuttle", clear Federation markings but nothing associated Starfleet. And then there's the Mariposa reg which is clearly described "NAR" as a UN registry. It's no huge leap of logic to assume that the old UN registry code would later become the new United Earth code.
Using the Vico as evidence is using the exception to prove a rule that otherwise makes little sense.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Um, Reverend, what are those markings on the nacelles and on the bow?
The Mariposa is a pre-Federation ship and therefore doesn't count.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Those are more like the ENT-era Starfleet Command logo than anything. So unless you're attempting to suggest that Raven is actually from the 2150s (which could get you lynched), then there's no point to be made.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Those are NOT Starfleet markings. They are uhm.. bananas. Yes. And they do look a bit like the 2150s Earth Starfleet Command logo, which would actually support Reverend's theory.
quote: Excelsior could have been starfleet's completed ship for the Transwarp trials
I read that as Transwarp tribbles. Weird thought.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Hahahaha...
"Transwarp drive in 5..4..3..2..1." SQUEAK!! Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Those are Starfleet markings. I think the animation done by the CGI company actually shortened the width of the arrow, thereby producing 'bananas on a red background'.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Those are Starfleet markings. I think the animation done by the CGI company actually shortened the width of the arrow, thereby producing 'bananas on a red background'.
That's possible. But I have the impression that it was intentional. An arrow doesn't simply become a banana. And the 24th century version of the arrowhead is either white on red ellipse (until 2369) or yellow without ellipse, but not yellow on a circle.
Mim, I like the format of the condensed list. I only may have chosen different colors because red (here used for onscreen) usually signals me that something is wrong or flawed.
BTW, you may want to switch to a different HTML editor than Winword. With all the unnecessary formats the file size is three times of what it could be. Unfortunately I don't know a way to remove them once they are in the code.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and adopting the McReynolds system---that is to say, reclassifying these materials as "apocryphal" in the ecclesiastical sense of being documents that lie just outside the actual Canon, being of debated or uncertain authorship/authenticity/integrity. (Actually, I think I personally prefer "deuterocanonical," which has a bit of a more sympathetic cannotation to it, so that may end up being a further change at some point, so for now I'll use "apocryphal.")![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
