In the dedication plate for the USS Tsiolkovsky, the ship's name is K.E. Tsiolkovsky. Tsiolkovsky's name was Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky. So, my question is, is the name of the ship from "The Naked Now" a. USS Tsiolkovsky or b. USS K.E. Tsiolkovsky?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I dunno. The plaque also said that the ship was launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Soviet Union, making it somewhat off-the-wall, if you'll excuse the utterly awful dedication plaque joke.
Are you sure the KE isn't just something to do with a Cyrillic representation of USS or SS?
[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I did a search for Tsiolkovsky's name on the internet. I got his name to be: Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky (K.E. Tsiolkovsky).
There are several pecularities with the starship's name. The first is the discussion of this thread. Another is the name prefix. In the episode, Capt. Picard identifies the ship as S.S. Tsiolkovsky, not U.S.S. Tsiolkovsky.
For the Voyager fans, this must be nice knowing that an earlier Star Trek series flubbed a name prefix before the Raven.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Seeing as the ded plaque only reads "K.E. Tsiolkovski", it is clearly not U.S.S. OTOH, it does have a Starfleet logo. Maybe it was built by Starfleet?
So, the ship is called simply (K.E.) Tsiolkovsky, possibly only officially registered as the *S.S* K.E. Tsiolkovsky.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
AFAIR the Raven's dedplaque said "The Raven" but hull marks said S.S. Raven.
Well, the T. had a Starfleet crew and the Starfleet emblem on the dedplaque, so I think it's a Starfleet vessel.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Perhaps it was built and crewed by SF, but it wasn't officially a SF-registered ship. And, if the Raven didn't have an "SS" or "USS" on its plaque, we can assume the Tsiolkovskiy (isn't that the correct spelling?) was the same. Therefore, it would actually be "SS K. E. Tsiolkovskiy", but everyone just refered to it as "SS Tsiolkovskiy" for short.
The registry wasn't actually visible anywhere, was it? If it was, that screws everything up...
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Although this is my opinion, I tend to think that some old starships which are decommissioned by starfleet continue to operate as non-registered vessels. Being an Oberth class it was becoming fairly old, so it could've been 'de-listed' from the fleet hence becoming the SS Tsiolkovsky, although it would've originally have had the prefix USS Tsiolkovsky. The same could be said for the Raven, and some Antares Class ships which carry the prefix NAR or SS. Being antiquated they're not listed ships, and could be available for charter and general use by the scientific community, and not generally operated by Starfleet. This is only one idea though...
OTOH, the Tsiolkovsky had a reg of NCC 53911, which doesn't inticate a very great age.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Maybe the ship was built on the 2340's but Starfleet had too many of them to be useful so they lent it to a private firm.
