Shouldn't we know if it's the Valkyrie, because if it is it will be upside down?
But anyways, was the "Redemption" ship the Valkyrie or the Hathaway?
I'm not sure, but I believe that "Redemption" was the last time we saw a Constellation-class ship on screen. So it would stand to reason that they kept the labeling from the last time the model was used, when it went on tour.
"Actually, I looked over that shot of the fleet departing a while ago, and I saw a registry of NCC-259x. (Couldn't make out the last number.) So that would support the Valkyrie theory."
Erm... Except that it also supports the Hathaway theory, so it doesn't really help...
It looks awful, but this isn't an aesthetic image, but an extreme closeup to search for detail, but this is the best, crispest quality I could get.
Looking at this enhanced, and inverted image of the Valkyrie in 'Redemption', it does look indeed like the last digit of the Regsitry apprears to be a three. Have a close look, then move back from the screen then you'll see what I mean.
I myself have the Valkyrie listed on my own site as NCC 2590. But it appears the registry here is NCC 2593, which makes this in fact a reuse of the Hathaway model.
The Hathaway could have been sitting in a yard somewhere closeby when the mission came up; they could have quickly slapped a replacement dilithium crystal assembly in there, pumped a lil' antimatter into the tanks, and had the jalopy ready to go. LaForge had already done a lot of hasty retrofitting work two years previous which could have been used.
Also, the Hathaway wouldn't have been the only ship that wasn't ship-shape; Hobson had the crew of the Sutherland scramling to get the ship marginally operational.
Mark
Y'know, it might make sense that the Hathaway was quickly pulled out of the scrap heap and thrown back into service. That would explain why it didn't actually make it into the detection grid. After all, it wasn't on the computer display, as shown in the Encyclopedia...
The Hathaway's a dinosaur, and probably couldn't defend itself against a Lysian century pod. That was a dangerous mission, with possible combat potential against Romulan warbirds. If I were assigned to the Hathaway in that mission I would've used the first available lifeboat and got the hell outa there. A quick jury-rig job on that ship just wouldn't get it into shape for that type of mission.
But then again, they used a damn Antares Class frieghter as part of the taskforce remember (the Hermes), so OTOH, they must have been so desperate as to use any Federation ship in range.
Were there ever ANY Constellations that appeared at DS9 or elsewhere? Were there any other apps on TNG besides the Stargazer, the Hathaway, the Magellan, or the Victory???
It must belong SOMEWHERE!
Speaking of old or inferior ships called into battle, we see this also at the Battle of Wolf 359. There we saw several old Excelsior- and Constitution-class prototypes, and at least one standard Refit Connie.
Plus that damned Oberth.
In fact we now know that the Valkyrie wasn't in Redemption at all. (Go figure)
Besides, even if it HAD been in the display, we'd still have to figure out where the model appeared.
Monkey: Why "must" it be somewhere? The Trinculo wasn't on screen, either. I highly doubt it was in the DS9 war eps, since those Galaxies, AFAIK, were CGI.
Red Admiral: It's never been established (or even suggested, really, except by the names) that the Starfleet Antares class is the same as, or even related to, the generic freighter Antares class.
I am staking a position on the Antares from "Charlie X". I am concurring with the StarTrek.Com site. In the episode synposis for that episode, the Antares is identified as "S.S. Antares".
My reasons:
1.) The Antares is never identified as a starship by the Enterprise crew.
2.) The Antares crew are not wearing standard Starfleet uniforms. They are wearing civilian uniforms. Rf. Captain Merrick of the S.S. Beagle ("Bread and Circuses"). He is wearing the beige top and black pants of his service. Captain Merrick is not Starfleet; he washed out of Starfleet and joined the civilian service.
3.) The Antares is the class ship of the Antares Class. Rf. dedication plate of the S.S. Xhosa. Mr. Okuda has stated openly in the encyclopedia that he doesn't know the meaning of "Starship Class" on the Enterprise's dedication plate. He understands his system-a class is named after the first ship in that class-not the older system proposed by the first Star Trek producers. I will not go into details on the older system for it is poorly explained and has been de-canonized out of Star Trek. This is the best evidence for the Antares Class ships in Federation service.
Continuing with point three...
The starships of Captain Kirk's time had a certain configuration ("The Doomsday Machine"). The Antares Class ships don't fit this model.
These three points for me make the Antares Class ships, and the S.S. Antares herself, a Federation civilian design.
Canonically, what is seen on screen or heard on screen, we don't know the class of the U.S.S. Hermes. She could be a member of a known or unknown class.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
I may get swatted for doing this again, but I want to say that the Encyclopedia is canon!!! So are the other official reference materials including the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals, the Chronologies, episode Companions, and the Fact Files. That's not to say that they're all 100% accurate all of the time, but they are legitimate parts of canon Trek.
'Starship' is a term that has shifted in meaning since TOS. In TOS, it meant a specific type of ship. You could equate it to the term 'battleship' in today's Navy. (A ship with the heaviest armor and largest guns.) But by the 24th century, it means more 'warship' (again, equating to our terms) meaning basically any ship in the Navy. Okuda exclusively uses the 24th century terminology, so that's why he calls the Antares and "Antares-class starship." That doesn't mean it would have been called a Starship in the 23rd century. Furthermore, the info for the Antares (including the U.S.S. and the NCC) and the Hermes (and pretty much all other ships) are from one of various ship display charts seen on the bridge and elsewhere in TNG. Okuda has said that this is where most all of the info in the Encyc first appeared. What he used to do was create charts of Federation ships, mostly those which had been seen or mentioned in the past, and use them as displays in the show. So, if you really want to get picky, all of that info has appeared on the screen.
And, occaisionally, even some Starfleet ships have had S.S. prefixes. (i.e., TAS ships.) It just means that they're auxiliaries/support craft/anything other.
I accept your position that the term 'starship' has changed in meaning. In Star Trek, the term 'starship' referred to the capital ships of the fleet. 'Starship' in the later series came to include all ships of the Starfleet.
When I attempt to identify a ship as Starfleet, I listen or look for certain indicators. In the spoken dialogue, the indicator is 'U.S.S.' or '(Federation)' starship. Indicators for visual identification are 'U.S.S.' or the first three units of the registry, ex. 'NCC'. For the Antares, I have only the dialogue to give status as to identity. This ship is not identified with 'U.S.S.' or as a starship.
As for Mr. Okuda's encyclopedia, I feel that any reference material worth its salt should give the bibliography for stated facts. Many of the details of starships and spaceships are given without this reference. For instance, in what episode is the U.S.S. Adelphi identified as an Ambassador Class starship with the registry of NCC-26849? Or, another case, where is the diagram in "Space Seed" that allegedly has the name and registry of the U.S.S. Constitution?
Tim's bascically hit the canon point on the head: canon is, by definition, neither personally-defined nor consisting of anything other than a body of work from a common source, in this case the Paramount lot.
Back on topic, every Galaxy seen since "Way of the Warrior" has almost certainly been CGI. Which seems to point to the Trinculo being custom-labeled for the sole purpose of exhibition. Which is odd, because one would think they'd just restore the 4-footer to 1701-D if they we going to the trouble of relabeling.
[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
1. Omit the episode and film summaries.
2. Include the source material for name, class and registry, ex. LCAR display.
3. Do extensive research to insure accuracy and completeness.
4. Leave the notes out.
5. Finally, proofread the encyclopedia.
Perish the thought that acknowlegement of Trek's being fictional creep in. Besides, they're useful for cross-referencing.
2. Include the source material for name, class and registry, ex. LCAR display.
Right. "The fans" who've been clamouring for this, both of them, will be pleased.
3. Do extensive research to insure accuracy and completeness.
Um, I think the Okudas would be less than impressed to hear someone intimate they didn't do "extensive" research. Of course they did, alongside their regular jobs within a limited timeframe. They do "extensive" research for the Encyclopaedia Britannicca, too, and there are still mistakes. Live with it.
4. Leave the notes out.
Why? Most people love them... Or is this point 1 creeping in again?
5. Finally, proofread the encyclopedia.
OF COURSE IT'S FRIGGIN' PROOFREAD! But until such a time as Pocket Books can harness the mistake-finding power of millions of fanboys poring over the text for three years for the several weeks market forces dictate it must be proofread during, I think the level of perfection will not meet your Borglike expectations.
quote:
But until such a time as Pocket Books can harness the mistake-finding power of millions of fanboys poring over the text for three years...
Actually, taking a look at the acknowledgements from the book, you see that they have. 