I'm currently expanding my ship list with ships from The Animated Series. I'd like to know if any registries were visible on-screen.
(Shut up about TAS being non-canon etc.! Please!)
- EDIT -
Aside from this question, is it correct that FJ's "Bonhomme Richard" class is a Constitution variant? The USS Merrimack from ST:TMP's Director's Edition is supposed to have taken from FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, where it is identified as a ship of this class.
- /EDIT -
[ May 04, 2002, 15:29: Message edited by: Alpha Centauri ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
U.S.S. Merrima(c)(k) in TMP!? Where? When?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Harry: It's supposedly in the Director's Edition of The Motion Picture. I have no idea where and when; I can't confirm anything myself, because I've only seen the 'regular' version.
[ May 05, 2002, 05:33: Message edited by: Alpha Centauri ]
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
A phaser rifle with nacelle.....
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
The "Cruiser Merrimack NCC-1715" can be clearly heard on the TMP:DE if you have surround sound and listen to the right speakers. It's in the background chatter of Epsilon IX. There's also a shuttlecraft mentioned as well.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'll listen to the chatter again, then . So there's the two scouts (Revere and Columbia, IIRC), the dreadnaught Entente and the cruiser Merrimack. I see that it's listed as U.S.S. Merrimac (oh boy, without a k!) NCC-1715 by Franz Joseph as a Constitution (well, actually a Bonhomme Richard) class ship.
And I still don't get it why there are about three million Constitution sub-classes that look EXACTLY the same or have at most a few extra useless hull details.
[ May 06, 2002, 02:34: Message edited by: Harry ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Two reasons: Franz Schnaubel, plus Jeffries and Probert didn't bother to properly shred and burn their early doodles after they had nailed down their respective Constitution designs.
I'm sorta waiting for somebody to invent "classes" for the ca. 529 ship and space station pencil studies we see in "Making of ST:DS9"...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
Hm.
[ May 06, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Nim Pim ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Some of those would actually make nice interstellar outposts for other races or abandoned space cities or some such...
Regarding FJ, he admitted he was never a Trek fan. He did all that he did as a combination of intellectual exercise and a treat for his daughter and her Trekkie friends. Kirk's "only a dozen like her" comment either was never heard, or was interpreted very loosely by FJ. Besides, if you look at the Tech Manual listing, it says all the Achernar-class ships are "authorized" -- but not yet built. Besides also, they'd really stop at NCC-1799. That's my story and I'm stickin' with it!
I personally have no problem with all the near-Enterprise sketches representing other ships' refit status or mission-specific mods at various points. I mean, however long the class was in production, I highly doubt the last new-build Constitution off the blocks was identical to the prototype back c.2243...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
TAS takes the cake for the Fewest Starships-in-a-Series award. Here is the complete list:
-U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701 (Duh!) -U.S.S. Potemkin, NCC-1657 ("The Pirates of Orion") -U.S.S. Huron, NCC-F1913 ("The Pirates of Orion") -S.S. Bonaventure, NCC-S2100 ("The Time Trap") -S.S. Ariel ("The Eye of the Beholder") -Name unknown NCC-G1465 ("More Tribbles, More Troubles") -Name unknown NCC-G1495 ("More Tribbles, More Troubles")
Annotations:
1. Obviously, a Constitution-class vessel under the command of Captain James T. Kirk, finishing the final two years (2269-2270) of the 5-yr mission started in TOS (2266-2269).
2. The same ship as from TOS and TUC, mentioned but not seen. It transferred the medical supplies to the Huron for delivery to the Enterprise.
3. A freighter under command of Captain O'Shea, carrying dilithium and medical supplies in 2270, attacked and raided by Orion pirates on SD 6334.1. (The ship was verbally called S.S. Huron in the episode, but the hull bore a "U.S.S." prefix. Before Masao dug up some clearer pics, the registry was previously thought to be NCC-F1313. Non-canon sources hold the ship to be of the Independence-class.)
4. An older Starfleet vessel, apparently a precursor to the Constitution-class, that was lost in the mysterious area of space called the Delta Triangle, and was discovered by the U.S.S. Enterprise on SD 5267.3. (The Bonaventure seems to have caused a lot of fuss for some people. In the episode, Scotty uttered the line: "There's the old Bonaventure. She was the first ship to have warp drive installed!" Many people take this as a contradiction to the facts we now know about the beginnings of Earth's warp era. There is no reason, however, why Scotty could not have merely meant it was the first Federation vessel to have warp drive installed, or some other semantic explanation like that. [In fact, this would make sense, since the ship was clearly adorned with SF sinage of the same style as the 1701. Certainly no more difficult to circumvent than his line about Romulan warp drive in "Balance of Terror" [TOS]. The Bonaventure is commonly held to be of the Bonaventure-class, which makes sense as it was clearly spoken of as if it were the first of its kind. It is also accepted that the ship bears and S.S. prefix but, like the Huron, this may be erroneous. [On the other hand, it may make sense, considering that from ENT we're seeing that SF used that prefix in its early years. Of course they'll al argue with me, but I don't really care. ])
5. The crew of the science vessel Ariel went missing in 2270 while in orbit of Lactra VII and the Enterprise crew were dispatched to search for them on SD 5501.2. (Again, the 'S.S.' prefix may be incorrect, or it may not. The ship was never seen onscreen, and as it was a science vessel it may indeed properly have an S.S. prefix, however the crew was seen to wear SF uniforms, so it's definitely a SF ship.)
6. One of two unmanned SF robot cargo drone vessels escorted to Sherman's Planet by the Enterprise in 2269 on SD 5392.4. (No name was mentioned, but the NCC was readable off the hull.)
7. The other of the two vessels mentioned above.
Hope that helps.
-MMoM
[ May 06, 2002, 21:31: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
For the obsessive-compulsive among us, two minor nitpicks:
1) Lest somebody minsunderstand, the registry of the Potemkin was not mentioned in the TAS episode in any way.
2) The name "Bonaventure" wasn't exactly shown to be associated with the ship NCC-S2100 which floated prominently on the main viewer of the Enterprise. Sure, it was heavily implied. But it's also possible that NCC-S2100 was just some newish piece of space junk that was partially obscuring our view of the real historic Bonaventure...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Don't be lazy in making up interpretations. It's as if I were to say, "Hey, look at the XX, she was the first ship to have a wooden frame and sails," while in reality meaning the first perfectly normally equipped ship built after the U.S. was established. You're making Scotty sound stupidly patriotic.
If it really was the first vessel to have warp drive installed after the Phoenix (and let's keep this in perspective -- how long would it be before such a vessel was constructed in Cochrane's conditions: years? a decade?) it could've been kept alive for almost a hundred years as a symbol. At some later point, it would receive the NCC-S2100 registry number and Starfleet markings, then disappear.
Boris
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: For the obsessive-compulsive among us, two minor nitpicks:
1) Lest somebody minsunderstand, the registry of the Potemkin was not mentioned in the TAS episode in any way.
Timo Saloniemi
No, it wasn't. It's from the starship mission assignment list okudagram in TUC, and of course is used in the Encyclopedia.
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The problem is that we're trying to find justifications for things that don't need to be justified.
The Bonaventure, for example: It is quite clearly the Enterprise-looking ship on the viewscreen that Scotty refers to as the Bonaventure, not any other ship in the background. And Scotty clearly says that it is "the first ship to have warp drive installed." Period. So now we all try to find some rational explanation as to how this contradiction can be explained with events seen in FC. However...
In a TAS standpoint, there's no reason to assume that this ship was built in the 2060's, just because that's when FC showed us the Phoenix launch. When TAS was being made, there was no backstory concerning the early days of the Federation, warp drive inventing, etc. For all the TAS writers & artists knew, the Federation's founding & discovery of warp drive came about only 20 years before Kirk's time, based on the fact that the Bonaventure looks so similar to the Enterprise. And of course, as Star Trek continued it's live-action spinoffs and movies, the validity of the information presented in TAS became more & more unusable. This is the sort of thing that made TPTB decide to "de-canonize" TAS.
I understand that explanations can be made up for just about any inconsistency, such as people who say that what Scotty "really meant to say" was that the Bonaventure was the first "Federation ship" to have Warp drive installed. But again, events in Series Five will most likely show this to be wrong. The most rational explanation, of course, is to just say that TAS isn't official anymore, which is exactly what they did.
Note: This is not a TAS-bash thread. I've never even seen an episode of TAS, so for all I know, it could be the greatest ST series ever. I'm just going by the information that was presented in the show.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I find it very ironic that the bulk of what you just stated applies just as much to TOS (and in some cases more) as it does to TAS. So, are we to accept the gradual "de-canonization" of TOS as well? If they've already done it once, why not again?
I refuse to just shrug off TAS as it seems to be so popular to do. I refuse to support the notion that any series can be "de-canonized." TAS is just as much a valid part of the official/canon/real ST universe as TOS, TNG, or any other series you care to name. It is ridiculous to dispute that. It's a series like any other, and the fact that it's animated should not and does not make any difference. The door must not be opened for this to happen to other series that "stand in the way" of TBTB's (and I'm not talking specifically about Berman & Braga here, I mean anyone in a position of 'power') desires to "re-imagine" the ST continuity.
I also maintain that at the present time, there as-yet exists no irreconcilable inconsistency between TAS and the rest of the canon. Everthing that has been cited as incongruous can be explained. And, somehow, I doubt that such a devastating calamity will ever take place. TAS is clearly acknowledged as having taken place (thanks mainly to Ron Moore and others on DS9's and VGR's production staff) and at least seems to still have a tenuous foothold in the plans of TPTB. True, we'll see what happens with ENT, but at the moment you cannot make any reasonable and con vincing case for TAS being a non-canon series.
For, like an Enterprise-class vessel, there is no such thing.
-MMoM
[ May 07, 2002, 10:20: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I just think that Scotty's line was slightly misleading. The Bonaventure was obviously a pre-1701, post NX-01 ship with Federation pennants. Maybe 'Installed Warp Drive�' is somewhere between 'Warp 5 Drive�' and breaking the 'Time-Warp Barrier�' on Star Trek's list of confusing early technical idiocies. At least we know its power isn't 'Simple Impulse�'
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I find it very ironic that the bulk of what you just stated applies just as much to TOS (and in some cases more) as it does to TAS. So, are we to accept the gradual "de-canonization" of TOS as well? If they've already done it once, why not again?
It's funny you mentioned that, because that was exactly what I was thinking as I was writing my post.
quote:The door must not be opened for this to happen to other series that "stand in the way" of TBTB's (and I'm not talking specifically about Berman & Braga here, I mean anyone in a position of 'power') desires to "re-imagine" the ST continuity.
But that's exactly what's happening, isn't it?
However, although B&B seem to be going out of their way to ignore TOS in favor of TNG/VOY (well, maybe ignore isn't a good choice of words, but TOS is definitely being swept under the table...), I really don't see anyone "de-canonizing" TOS anytime soon. However, the problem doesn't really lie with B&B liking or disliking TOS. The problem lies with trying to be internally consistent with a show that's had 35 years of existence in some form or other. And whether they really want to.
IMHO, I would rather have had a prequel show more in tune with TOS than with TNG/VOY myself. But that's not what we got. And the more that B&B stray from the Original Series, the more things are going to be harder & harder to be explained away. That was my whole point. Unless of course you look at Enterprise as a remake rather than as a sequel. That solves pretty much every continuity issue.
[ May 07, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Back to the Boaventure, I don't see a problem;
Phoenix was the first ship equipped with a warp drive; Bonaventure was the first Starfleet ship equipped with a warpdrive and NX-01 is just the designation of the class and has nothing to do with Starfleet registries in the common sense. If you don't believe it, fine, but show me a good explanation for the NCC-scheme before 2161 (maybe we should even include TOS-era). What do we have? Okuda's Ficus-sector diagram with NARs, spread up to the 2000's, I think, the Enterprise/Dauntless-debacle, the TAS registry scheme with letters in front of the number and so on. I don't have a problem to thank that Bonaventure came before NX01, even if it's S2100 or something. Who said TOS-registries are non-chronological? Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
I don't think that saying the Bonaventure was the first warp-capable ship necessarily clashes with the events in ST:FC. The Phoenix was merely a *craft*, while the Bonaventure was supposedly a real *ship*. This is a real difference; even the TNGTM mentions the distinction between ships and craft:
quote:Smaller vessels with impulse or limited warp capability, such as shuttles [but can also be applied to the Phoenix, IMO], are referred to as craft, to distinguish them from the larger starships. (page 5)
Although I consider TAS to be a 'real' part of the Star Trek lore, I qualify it lower than the other series, so I'd dismiss the Constitution-ish appearence of the Bonaventure, rather than saying that the entire ship didn't exist.
I also don't think that it is an problem that the Bonaventure was already zipping around at warp speeds as early as the 2060s. It could have been constructed and commissioned even prior to the launch of the Phoenix. Even the TNGTM says that 'existing vessels were equipped with warp drive with surprising ease'. Perhaps even written with the Bonaventure in mind?
Kyle: the Ficus-chart goes back to 2102, not as far as the 2000s.
Mighty Monkey, thanks for your elaborate description, but I only wanted to know if any 'official' registries were available. I knew of all the ships and how they looked like. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alpha Centauri: Mighty Monkey, thanks for your elaborate description, but I only wanted to know if any 'official' registries were available. I knew of all the ships and how they looked like.
You're welcome. As said, I believe all of those registries (obviously not the Potemkin's) were readable onscreen. (Or, as mentioned, from clearer images [i.e., the trading card of Masao's which would appear to be made from an actual animation cell used in filming] that have surfaced since.)
-MMoM Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
SCOTTY:
"She was the first Starfleet ship that had warp drive installed, Capt'n!"
KIRK:
"Scotty, EVERY Starfleet ship had warp drive installed. For decades before that, ships had been running on warp drive. What you're saying is like saying that she was the first Starfleet ship to be made of metal."
It's better to discount something completely than to invent irrational explanations. If we accept the Bonaventure, then it must have been equipped right after the Phoenix. Since there were clearly no ships or shipyards orbiting the Earth in FC, either it was built on an Earth shipyard (unlikely, because the 1701 to which it is similar was built in space), or it was built after 2063 with the help of the Vulcans/other humans. It need not look the same -- that's why TAS is merely official. Perhaps it was somewhat modified over the years in order to keep the "symbol" up to date.
Boris
[ May 07, 2002, 16:14: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Scotty's line didn't refer to Starfleet, did it?
But whether it did or not, we now have evidence of Starfleet being an Earth organization long before the founding of the Federation.
Other things about the FC era... This was almost seventy years after the launch of the Botany Bay, so Earth's had interstellar capability for some time already. And I'd like to point out how outright impossible it is to see something as small as a shipyard or early space station from anything more than a few tens of kilometers. It would appear as just another star in a cursory glimpse -- if it's in the field of view at all.
And considering that station-keeping systems would be a lot simpler than in later stations, odds are any orbital shipyards would be at synchronous altitudes, which are a lot higher than the altitudes of the Borg sphere and the Enterprise.
--Jonah
Posted by Dennistn (Member # 386) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB]SCOTTY:
"She was the first Starfleet ship that had warp drive installed, Capt'n!"
If you just change it to
"She was the first Star Ship that had warp drive installed, Capt'n!"
you solve some of the problems. This is generally used to identify ships similar to the Enterprise which also matches what we see on screen in TAS.
This requires less "made up interpretations" than many other ideas to explain away Scotty's quote. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, let's solve one thing for certain. Here's exactly what Scotty said:
"Captain, there's the old Bonaventure. She was the first ship to have warp drive installed. She vanished without a trace on her third voyage."
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Scotty's a retard.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It didn't happen.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Twits. I see nothing wrong with that comment. Earth had been sending out interstellar ships for decades by the time of Cochrane's warp flight. I have no problem with the notion that the Bonaventure was the first ship to have warp drive [u]installed[/u]. As in, not built in, as with the Phoenix or later classes.
What indications have we seen in Enterprise as to when Starfleet might have been formed, BTW?
--Jonah
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
IIRC, around 15 years before 2151, according to the series bible. "...hasn't been around for that long" according to Trip in one of the first few episodes.
[ May 14, 2002, 01:04: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I see nothing wrong with that comment. Earth had been sending out interstellar ships for decades by the time of Cochrane's warp flight. I have no problem with the notion that the Bonaventure was the first ship to have warp drive installed. As in, not built in, as with the Phoenix or later classes.
So what you're saying, and which also seems to be the prevalent attitude, is that the Bonaventure was built in the 2060's. But it looks like the Enterprise NCC-1701, a ship from the 2260's. You can't have two ships that look incredibly similar, but have a two hundred year span of time separating them.
Oh, wait a minute...
[ May 14, 2002, 13:31: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
My comment had nothing to do with the Bonaventure's appearance -- just the tech. Personally, I don't think it should have looked anything like what we saw, but hey -- I also still claim the Crazy Horse and Pegasus are Cheyenne-class ships, as originally intended before budgetary/time realities kicked in...
--Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Jonah: I wasn't actually criticizing what you said. I was just poking some lighthearted fun into the discussion
And I find it quite ironic that the two ships that were originally supposed to be Cheyennes actually ended up being in the same episode...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's my story and I'm stickin' with it! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
])