I had also prepared a 'simple' DP patch, along the lines of the Galaxy one, but I couldn't get it to look right
Oh, and for all CorelDRAW users, here's the trick to get easy rounded triangles: Draw a regular triangle, and give it a HUGE outline. Then, in the "Outline Pen Settings" of the triangle, give it round corners! For smaller triangles, just adjust the outline width.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ok.. let's just do all of FJ's ships here.
Here's the Ptolemy (really simplistic logos here)
As you can see, I've changed the registry from 3801 to 1801. Fits better, IMNSHO.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
OK I feel I have to play Devil's Advocate and ask: Why would it fit better to change an already existing, and fairly well known, registy for the Ptolemy class, but not the Saladin class? They were all approved at the same time - and likely built at the same time - , but the Constitution class was supposed to have been built first. Why not change the destroyer's registry to an "1800" series? Using your line of thinking, shouldn't the Saladin's have a higher registry number, then...?
Not to insult, but your decision seems based more on arbitrary thinking than logic.
And great job, BTW. Wish I could do some stuff like that.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Are today's Carrier, Battleship, Destroyer, etcetera numbers consecutive? I was looking at the Navy Hull Classification System and it looks like they assign a block of numbers to the construction order, which they try to keep consecutive to the last group of the same tyme of ships. That site has lots of intersting insight to re-classifications and numbering.
Look at this list of the CVN hulls:
Class Hull Name CVN 65 CVN 65 ENTERPRISE CVN 68 CVN 68 NIMITZ CVN 68 CVN 69 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER CVN 68 CVN 70 CARL VINSON CVN 68 CVN 71 THEODORE ROOSEVELT CVN 68 CVN 72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN CVN 68 CVN 73 GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN 68 CVN 74 JOHN C. STENNIS CVN 68 CVN 75 HARRY S. TRUMAN CVN 68 CVN 76 RONALD REAGAN CVN 68 CVN 77 GEORGE H. W. BUSH
Class Hull Name DD 931 DD 944 MULLINNIX DD 945 DD 945 HULL DD 945 DD 946 EDSON DD 945 DD 948 MORTON DD 945 DD 950 RICHARD S. EDWARDS DD 945 DD 951 TURNER JOY DD 963 DD 963 SPRUANCE DD 963 DD 964 PAUL F. FOSTER DD 963 DD 965 KINKAID DD 963 DD 966 HEWITT
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Oh, no argument from me there. I'm w/you in that regard, if you were directing your comment at me, "Woozle". That was actually the point I was going for, in case I was clear as mud.
I'm thinking that this is where "Franz" Joseph Schnaubelt (FJD) was going with his registry numbers, as well. Basically, blocks of registry numbers were "reserved" for the construction of those ships. I don't believe he was trying for a truely, well defined logical explanation beyond that. Conjecture on my part, obviously....
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
First off, you skipped some carriers. My guess is that they are missing from your list merely because they are not nuclear (and hence CV-##, instead of CVN-##). CV-66 is America (decomissioned) and CV-67 is John F. Kennedy. Both were built after Enterprise and before Nimitz.
As for the destroyers, maybe Congress cancelled some hulls during construction (numbers are assigned when the ship is first ordered).
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Look at this list of the CVN hulls:
Class Hull Name CVN 65 CVN 65 ENTERPRISE CVN 68 CVN 68 NIMITZ CVN 68 CVN 69 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER CVN 68 CVN 70 CARL VINSON CVN 68 CVN 71 THEODORE ROOSEVELT CVN 68 CVN 72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN CVN 68 CVN 73 GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN 68 CVN 74 JOHN C. STENNIS CVN 68 CVN 75 HARRY S. TRUMAN CVN 68 CVN 76 RONALD REAGAN CVN 68 CVN 77 GEORGE H. W. BUSH
Enterprise is a famous name, Nimitz was an Admiral, and most of the people were Presidents, but who were John C. Stennis and Carl Vinson?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Interesting that SF doesn't seem to do this. The only ships named after people seem to be named after famous SF people, like Chekov and Archer.
In fact, come to think of it, SF personnel never seem to mention politics at all...
Perhaps SF operates separately from the political side of the UFP, sort of quasi-autonomously.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
quote:Perhaps SF operates separately from the political side of the UFP, sort of quasi-autonomously.
Uh, no.
People in starships with massive firepower roaming space with no political control.
Hmmmmm seems to be a bad baaad idea to me.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Well, you actually do have a precedent for political naming of vessels in the Trek universe - the "Vulcan" registry shuttle we see in ST:TMP is named for Surak, founder of the Logic Movement on Vulcan, and I believe there are one or two other StarFleet vessels with Vulcan names, as well as the Excelsior class starship Gorkon, named in honor of Klingon Chancellor Gorkon who was assassinated in ST:VI.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Styrofoaman:
quote:Perhaps SF operates separately from the political side of the UFP, sort of quasi-autonomously.
Uh, no.
People in starships with massive firepower roaming space with no political control.
Hmmmmm seems to be a bad baaad idea to me.
I never said it was a good idea, did I?
Who makes the decisions regarding the elimination of the Borg? Admiral Necheyev. Who organises defence of Earth and doesn't notify anyone? Admiral Paris. Who makes Worf an ambassador? Admiral Ross. Who decides to help the Klingons in TUC? The SF CinC. How many of the Federation Council Members in TVH are SF Admirals? Lots.
Some of these are probably wrong/inaccurate, but you get the picture. We never see anyone non-Starfleet make any big decisions except in Homefront, which shows an unopposed (except by Sisko) SF takeover of Earth.
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Well, you actually do have a precedent for political naming of vessels in the Trek universe - the "Vulcan" registry shuttle we see in ST:TMP is named for Surak, founder of the Logic Movement on Vulcan, and I believe there are one or two other StarFleet vessels with Vulcan names, as well as the Excelsior class starship Gorkon, named in honor of Klingon Chancellor Gorkon who was assassinated in ST:VI.
But that's a shuttle, not a ship. Aren't shuttles named by the ship's captain? (If not, Voyager must have a lot of unnamed shuttles hanging around). It's also more of a "religious" or "philosophical" naming than a political one, kind of like USS Aristotle perhaps. And Gorkon wasn't a Federation politician, he was a Klingon.
Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person - it's USS Chekhov, not USS Pavel Chekhov or USS Pavel D Chekov (I don't know if he has a middle name, but he's Russian, so he should have a patronymic). I think it sounds a lot better this way. USS George H W Bush is so unwieldly, and definately doesn't sound like a warship.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person
I wouldn't say that. We've got the John Muir, Nils Bohr, and Thomas Paine.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Double post.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person
I wouldn't say that. We've got the John Muir, Nils Bohr, and Thomas Paine.
By the way, Spike, your website is very useful. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person - it's USS Chekhov, not USS Pavel Chekhov or USS Pavel D Chekov (I don't know if he has a middle name, but he's Russian, so he should have a patronymic).
Pavel Andreievich Chekov (no h). his fathers name was most likely Andrei
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike:
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person - it's USS Chekhov, not USS Pavel Chekhov or USS Pavel D Chekov (I don't know if he has a middle name, but he's Russian, so he should have a patronymic).
Pavel Andreievich Chekov (no h). his fathers name was most likely Andrei
I wouldn't fancy being the poor captain who would have to say "This is the Federation Starship Pavel Andreievich Chekov", if they used the US system. Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
So when do we get to see the Toilet patch?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Hey! I have a Saladin patch too. I took the name for one of my Pyotr Velikiy ships and used the RN badge as the basis of my emblem.
I like that simple Ptolomey patch. However, using old pictures on patches is tricky. Some of mine turned out OK while others didn't. I find that putting a black/clear image on a colored background makes the figure fade out too much.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
The "blocks" of hull numbers makes perfect sense and who's to say that at some time in the early 24th century - or late 23rd - someone decided to abandon that method for an "order of contruction" method instead...
Maybe the number of ships was getting too large to handle using the old way and they just felt it would be easier to assign numbers as the ships were completed.
As for the ships with odd-ball numbers (1664 etc) that are out of sync - refits. Older classes brought up to newer specs with heavy refits. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
On of the reasons for not adjusting the Saladin (and Hermes) registries is the mentioning of the Columbia (NCC-621, Cygnus class Scout) and the Revere (NCC-595, Hermes class Scout) in TMP. And seeing as both these ships are from the SFTM, the low registries of the Hermes and Saladin are vaguely canon. Same goes for the 21** registries of the Federation class. But the 38** numbers are just so out of range and were never mentioned, so I felt I could change them to fit in a little better.
And if it's any consolidation, the first batch of Oberths also have very low registries.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Don't ask me what NV stands for - I just made it up! Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: On of the reasons for not adjusting the Saladin (and Hermes) registries is the mentioning of the Columbia (NCC-621, Cygnus class Scout) and the Revere (NCC-595, Hermes class Scout) in TMP. And seeing as both these ships are from the SFTM, the low registries of the Hermes and Saladin are vaguely canon. Same goes for the 21** registries of the Federation class. But the 38** numbers are just so out of range and were never mentioned, so I felt I could change them to fit in a little better.
And if it's any consolidation, the first batch of Oberths also have very low registries.
Oberth NCC-602, Copernicus NCC-623 and Grissom NCC-638 fit in perfectly with Cygnus NCC-600 and Columbia NCC-621, so I assumed that some Oberths were originally Cygnus Class and were upgraded, which would explain the 602 of the Oberth, which doesn't fit in with my block system.
I kind of worked out that build-order registries came into effect in the late 2000s (after Hathaway NCC-2593 and before Stargazer NCC-2893).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
If the Oberths are Cygnuses refitted, then we have to abandon the idea that the "subclasses" in SFTM are at least roughly similar to the "main classes" depicted (you can't refit a close Hermes relative into an Oberth). Which isn't necessarily a bad change, but IMHO not a very good one, either.
The Cygnus subclass is a fun case because it loses its namesake ship to a canon vessel. It wouldn't be impossible to think that three Cygnuses were cancelled in favor of Oberths, including the class ship - but it would also be a rather special case. There are no doubt some real world examples of such things, but I can't think of any just now.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: If the Oberths are Cygnuses refitted, then we have to abandon the idea that the "subclasses" in SFTM are at least roughly similar to the "main classes" depicted (you can't refit a close Hermes relative into an Oberth). Which isn't necessarily a bad change, but IMHO not a very good one, either.
The Cygnus subclass is a fun case because it loses its namesake ship to a canon vessel. It wouldn't be impossible to think that three Cygnuses were cancelled in favor of Oberths, including the class ship - but it would also be a rather special case. There are no doubt some real world examples of such things, but I can't think of any just now.
Timo Saloniemi
Only if you take the Cygnus design from the SFTM. Surely (speaking canonically here) the Cygnus could just be an older-looking Oberth? Different nacelles, more boxey, more TOS-ish?
I don't particularly like all the 1-nacelled ships from the SFTM anyway. ST has shown that they are very uncommon (even ENT ships have 2 nacelles), if not completely unseen, and I would rather dismiss them as uncanon to be honest.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Speaking strictly canon, you're right. But I'd like to say the SFTM is mostly canon as far as ships are concerned (not Starfleet HQ, the articles and organigrams). We've seen all the ships appearing on monitors in the first three movies, and we've heard of four ships in the TMP comm chatter.
Of course, there are some conflicts with canon. The Antares NCC-501 clashes with a Saladin, and some Oberths clash with Hermii/Cygnii. But I'd like to explain that, instead of just saying the SFTM ships are not canon. Plus, I've kind of grown to like FJ's ships.
Anyway... I don't really want this to be a discussion on the relevance of the SFTM...
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I don't know how the size works out, but could you take a Cygnus saucer section, stick two nacelles and a bottom bit on and make an Oberth?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I wrote a short piece on how to merge the Hermes/Monoceros/Cygnus and Oberth registries.
All canon ships (the two from TMP and the various Oberths from later movies) have the registries and classes that they should have. Some other ships have either registry or class altered.
i prefer to think that a SFTM ship that had its registry stolen by another vessel still exists, just with a different registry.. if the Cygnus registry is superseded by another source i give more credit to, then i would list the Cygnus as the class ship of the cygnus-class, but with a 'registry unknown' tag.. it might possibly be one of those cases of ships that have wildly different registries than their yard-mates (like the 1017 and 16xx Connies)
basically i just assume that the ship still exists, just that the TM was wrong about the reg
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Turning a Cygnus into an Oberth just won't work; the sizes don't transfer. While there is a great deal of confusion about the size of the Oberth (as I found out on Bernd's site), the greatest length I ever saw given for the class was roughly 198 meters. At that scale, the ship is only 103 meters wide at it's broadest point (the outside edges of the nacelles); the saucer part of the hull is only 64 meters wide (barely half the beam of a Connie-variant hull).
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
Well then I'll just assume that the SFTM is wrong and that the Cygnus is just an older Oberth and looks nothing like the Hermes, and is not a subclass of it. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
nah, i like the design presented by the SotSF associated Recog chart.. basically, the Franz Joseph TM, Todd Guenther SotSF and Aridas Sofia FSRC i all consider to be on the level.. i'm not going to dismiss their designs as simply 'not existing.. maybe the class ship for the Cygnus is NCC-478 or something, and then the rest ended up in the 6xx range, with a few Oberths mixed in (just like some Connies are 16xx and some are 17xx and 18xx, but there are Mirand� and other ship types mixed in too in those ranges)
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: nah, i like the design presented by the SotSF associated Recog chart.. basically, the Franz Joseph TM, Todd Guenther SotSF and Aridas Sofia FSRC i all consider to be on the level.. i'm not going to dismiss their designs as simply 'not existing.. maybe the class ship for the Cygnus is NCC-478 or something, and then the rest ended up in the 6xx range, with a few Oberths mixed in (just like some Connies are 16xx and some are 17xx and 18xx, but there are Mirand� and other ship types mixed in too in those ranges)
Except that I think the 600 and 800 ships were different classes that looked like Connies but weren't.
Also, it's not like I am completely ignoring the design of the Cygnus, as it's also the design of the Hermes (which I think is 550, but that's another story). All I am saying is that instead of Hermes and Cygnus looking the same, we have Cygnus looking like an old Oberth and Hermes looking like the SFTM one nacelled ship.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)