Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
(I hope this isn't considered problematic because of copyright; after all, it's been posted online already, and I'm just saving people transcribing work.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ) was T-Negative #27 from April of 1975, published by one Ruth Berman out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In case you don't know, this is the document that contains Greg Jein's original article on the Constitution-class registry numbers.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I've just downloaded these images to read, but from even the quickest glance suggests this is a great source of info.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Well, actually it does. You've got to remember that at this point (as during TOS) the term "Starship" very specifically referred to the Constitution-class. (Obviously, that's been modified through the years, but in this context that's what it meant.)
Originally posted by Spike:
Unless I overlooked something, this article does not claim, that all vessels on the chart were Constitution-class vessels. So, who did really make up this crap?
quote:But look at page 5. Only the starships with NCC-17xx-registries got a MK IX designation. Or is he implying that there are Constitution-classes MK I through X?
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Well, actually it does.
Originally posted by Spike:
Unless I overlooked something, this article does not claim, that all vessels on the chart were Constitution-class vessels. So, who did really make up this crap?
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But look at page 5. Only the starships with NCC-17xx-registries got a MK IX designation. Or is he implying that there are Constitution-classes MK I through X?
quote:That big list at the top of the second column on the the last page is NOT Jein's. It was part of Ruth Berman's note that comes after the asterisk before the last paragraph of the first column on that same page.
Originally posted by The359:
So where exactly did he get the numbers for the Farragut, Horney, Kongo, Lafayette, Potemkin, Tashik-Sotra, Valiant, or Yorktown?
quote:I don't know about that, since Okuda used NCC-1895 and NCC-956 for them on the Operation Retrieve chart from TUC.
And I wonder if I should change my numbers for the Eagle and Endeavour now.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I don't see how it can be 1631. In the DVD cap there's a definite dimpling of the number on the left side. If it were a 6, the left side would be straight and would only be dimpled on the left if it were an 8. I can only see that it can be NCC-1831.
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
The only one that hasn't seemed to be right is NCC-1631, which *looks* like NCC-1831 in DVD caps.
)quote:
USS Constitution NCC-1700 Constitution
USS Constellation NCC-1017 Constitution
USS Defiant NCC-1764 Constitution
USS Eagle NCC-1685 Constitution
USS Endeavour NCC-1718 Constitution
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Constitution
USS Essex NCC-1697 Constitution
USS Excalibur NCC-1664 Constitution
USS Exeter NCC-1672 Constitution
USS Farragut NCC-1647 Constitution
USS Hood NCC-1703 Constitution
USS Hornet NCC-1868 Constitution
USS Intrepid NCC-1631 Constitution
USS Kongo NCC-1732 Constitution
USS LaFayette NCC-1866 Constitution
USS Lexington NCC-1709 Constitution
USS Potemkin NCC-1702 Constitution
USS Republic NCC-1371 Constitution
USS Tashik-Sotra NCC-1865 Constitution
USS Valiant NCC-1623 Constitution
USS Yorktown NCC-1717 Constitution
STARBASE 10 LIST:
NCC-1709
NCC-1631
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1664
NCC-1697
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700
ESTABLISHED:
Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valiant, Intrepid
POTENTIAL:
Essex, Endeavor, El Dorado, Excelsior, Saratoga, Hornet, Wasp, Bonhomme Richard, Monitor, Merrimac, Tori,
Lafayette, Ari, Krieger, Eagle
USS Excalibur and USS Endeavour -- two other ships at Altair III. ("Amok Time")
USS Essex and USS Eagle -- two ships near Babel. ("Journey to Babel")
USS Argentina (became Exeter in "The Omega Glory")
USS Lord Nelson (became Beagle in "Bread and Circuses")
USS Scimitar (became Defiant in "The Tholian Web")
quote:Yes. His reluctance motivated me to do some more searching online for myself. (It turned out to ba really great deal---I paid a mere $1.00 for this thing!) I'm afraid he's in for a hard time in trying to get into contact with Jein. He seems to be something of a recluse. Neither Okuda nor Sternbach have a contact address (e-mail or otherwise) for him (or at least one they're willing to divulge) and online searches turn up nothing helpful.
Originally posted by Masao:
GREAT STUFF!!! Greg Tyler of www.trekplace.com also has a copy of #27 but refused to post it until he got the ok from Greg Jein.
quote:I strongly doubt that Jein would have any objection to the distribution of this article, since it was written nearly 30 years ago and furthermore was intended for the very purpose of dissemination among Star Trek fandom. (That's what the whole fanzine system was about.)
Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
(I hope this isn't considered problematic because of copyright; after all, it's been posted online already, and I'm just saving people transcribing work.
quote:
This just occurred to me, but we finally have explanations for the Franz Joseph names of the starships for registries -1712 through -1727. (Or at least, I'd never known where they came from before.)
quote:
USS Constitution NCC-1700 Constitution
USS Constellation NCC-1017 Constitution
USS Defiant NCC-1764 Constitution
USS Eagle NCC-1685 Constitution
USS Endeavour NCC-1718 Constitution
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Constitution
USS Essex NCC-1697 Constitution
USS Excalibur NCC-1664 Constitution
USS Exeter NCC-1672 Constitution
USS Farragut NCC-1647 Constitution
USS Hood NCC-1703 Constitution
USS Hornet NCC-1868 Constitution
USS Intrepid NCC-1631 Constitution
USS Kongo NCC-1732 Constitution
USS LaFayette NCC-1866 Constitution
USS Lexington NCC-1709 Constitution
USS Potemkin NCC-1702 Constitution
USS Republic NCC-1371 Constitution
USS Tashik-Sotra NCC-1865 Constitution
USS Valiant NCC-1623 Constitution
USS Yorktown NCC-1717 Constitution
quote:Starbase 11, actually.
STARBASE 10 LIST:
quote:No, the others at least do in fact look to be 6s.
Originally posted by The359:
if the Intrepid is 1831, then why aren't the others 1894, 1897, and 1885? They certainly look like the same digit as the Intrepid.
quote:Yes, even Jein recognizes this in the article. It's outside of the Connie's timeframe by a decade.
I still also do not include the Valiant as a Constitution class, since it doesn't fit the timeline or anything.
quote:Yeah, I realized that after I posted. I'd been wondering where that unusual Vulcan-sounding name came from...
Remember now, this is not Jein's list but rather Ruth Berman's modified one
I thought the person coming through the door was Kirk - which would have made sense in-light of fan slash-fic! LOL!
quote:I could *almost* be in favor of this, but the fact remains that if there's ever anything more about the Connies established, Paramount is likely to use these numbers rather than any other set.
Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
At any rate, I think that rather than incorporating this info into canon, it should be used to debunk the Encyclopedia's lists of most of the Connies. After all, this article shows all the convoluted (although still quite inspired) logic that would make poor Spock weep. For its time, though, the registry numbers would make pretty good sense -- they just don't fit into the Okudaic system that's taken over since then.
quote:Well, the ship was called a "Starship" in "Court Martial," which in TOS terms is a strong indicator that it was a Connie.
1) We never, ever SAW the USS Republic, so it doesn't HAVE to be a Constitution unless that specific designation was placed next to it in some ST:6 display. And even then, I'd be inclined to toss that out to explain the registry number.
quote:Of course that rather messes with the NCC-1710 Kongo, which appeared on the TUC Operation Retrieve chart.
2) As I indicated in another thread, my personal belief is that some strange gravitational distortions caused by the Doomsday Machine distorted light waves in a peculiar way, and the Constellation's true registry number is actually NCC-1710.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Maybe it's the control point for several repair depots? Like a central control - maybe a few are at UP, San Fran, Luna, Vulcan, Rigel etc.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....
...one fast and furious attack from a hostile force and there goes the meat and potatoes of the Federation....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) at the same place and time?
quote:I thought we decided that it wasn't necessarily a repair schedule but could be something else, like a mission readout or fleet operations overview.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....
quote:But I don't think this is warranted. What would it be based on, besides Jein's conjecture? It would be fine if there weren't the Operation Retrieve chart to contradict it. But that's just the issue.
Originally posted by The359:
...If we move Eagle and Endeavour to their new numbers, then the registries are more closely grouped together...
quote:The problem is that it doesn't really make sense that nearly ALL of them should have registries lower than the class prototype, NCC-1700.
Originally posted by AndrewR:
Also, I don't get what the problem is with the Connies - like what's the issue? Are people trying to rationalise 16xx's as Connies? or even the Constellation?
quote:Our understanding of the modern internals of a phaser emitter came exclusively from Sternbach's TNGTM... And the DS9TM, to a lesser extent. So that's my only point of reference.
Originally posted by newark:
From the illustration, are we able to draw any conclusions on how phasers of this era worked and what comparisons can be created between these phasers and phasers of a hundred years later?
quote:I dont think the "% Complete" refers to missions; and the cap I have has 3 words above that cut out that probably would clear a lot up....page 6 of this lil gem seems to think the same thing about it being a repair schedule, some of which can be based on the lines about ships undergoing maintenance. Consider also that if that is a repair base they would have to be at full capacity if they need to pull the Intrepid to get the Enterprise in...so by that we already know a few ships are there
quote:I thought we decided that it wasn't necessarily a repair schedule but could be something else, like a mission readout or fleet operations overview.
I still think it is quite odd that such a large percentage of Star Fleets' core are all under repair at the same time at the same place....
quote:Ack. So this does either mean that there has been a "USS Starship" or that the Constitution has to be something absolutely new and brilliant that they decide to change their whole nameing/class pattern.
Originally posted by Akira:
I have a simple way of looking at this
All the Ships were Starship Class untill the new connie class came into play and thus renamed Constitution class
See im a mad man
) new system and invented what we know today. There could have been another change in the registry system between TOS and the 24th century. From all we know, allthough Okuda says otherwise, TOS and TNG registry systems do not work the same way.
quote:This is a part of my favorite theory. I subscribe to the FJ registry series because it more closely resembles the registry of the modern U.S. Navy, wherein blocks of registry numbers are used for specific ship classes. While it's not 100% that simple, the basic thinking is.
>SNIP<
There could have been another change in the registry system between TOS and the 24th century. From all we know, allthough Okuda says otherwise, TOS and TNG registry systems do not work the same way.
quote:The one above the lower diagram says "ANTI-CYCLING" but that's the only one I can really make out. Perhaps when Greg Tyler posts his scans he'll have had a slightly clearer copy to work from.
Originally posted by David Templar:
So, from what I know of phasers, I'm looking at a prefire chamber, with the power feed from the bottom, and the emitter assembly that clutter on the top and to the right of the blob.
If we could actually read what the labels say (the texts are too faded in the box!), we wouldn't need to guess!
quote:"STAR SHIP STATUS"
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
...the cap I have has 3 words above that cut out that probably would clear a lot up...
quote:Yes, we already know that's what the chart's about. But what's the title?
"STAR SHIP STATUS"
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Perhaps the USS Starship was a prototype that was commissioned but never in active service, thus eliminating "This is Captain Smith of the Starship Starship".
Originally posted by Akira:
I have a simple way of looking at this
All the Ships were Starship Class untill the new connie class came into play and thus renamed Constitution class
See im a mad man
quote:As we've just now found out from that display, TOS "Space Seed" or alternatively "The Trouble With Tribbles." (BTW, I'm still waiting for that screencap from any willing body...)
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Incidentally,
a) when was the first time "Constitution Class" was used?
quote:Yes. Immediately coming to mind are TNG "The Naked Now" and "Relics." Possibly DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" as well...
b) was it ever used later to refer to the TOS Enterprise?
quote:Speaking in "real" Trek terms, you're correct. But generally the issue in question in our discussions on this particular subject is whether these ships were intended to be Connies originally or not. So the fact that "Starship" was synonymous with "vessel of the Enterprise's design" then becomes a significant identifier.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
With regard to the Starship = Constitution theory, I am pretty sure that Archer calls himself Captain Archer of the Starship Enterprise, at least 100 years before TOS, which would suggest that (regardless of the original intentions of the writers) Starship does not mean Constitution Class.
quote:Tell that to Commodore Jones!
Originally posted by Phoenix:
(especially not ones called Bonhomme Richard, which I think is a rather silly name for a ship in the first place)
quote:Point the First:
The Bonhomme Richard
She was an elderly, high pooped, French East Indiaman of 900 tons named LE DUC DU DURAS and, in 1779, she was lying at L`Orient on the French Atlantic coast.
At the instigation of M. de Sartine, the French Minister of Marine, she was bought by King Louis XIV of France and put at the disposal of Captain John Paul Jones of the American Continental Navy.
She was originally armed for protection against pirates in far eastern waters and carried her guns on one deck, twenty-eight 12-pounders, with six lighter pieces, six-pounders, on the poop-deck and forecastle. Jones had ports cut in the gun room on the deck below where he mounted six 18-pounder guns - making forty-two guns in all.
Jones renamed her BONHOMME RICHARD in honor of Dr Benjamin Franklin, the American representative in France, who had used Richard as a pen-name. Four other vessels, mainly crewed by Frenchmen, the PALLAS, VENGEANCE, an armed brig, a large cutter CERF and a warship ALLIANCE, were added to make a small squadron under the American flag, with Jones in command. The crew of the BONHOMME RICHARD included 150 American seamen, 100 of whom had recently been exchanged as prisoners of war for captured English sailors.
quote:
She was an elderly, high pooped, French East Indiaman of 900 tons
quote:Was the motto on the plaque:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Perhaps the USS Starship was a prototype that was commissioned but never in active service, thus eliminating "This is Captain Smith of the Starship Starship".
quote:I can kindasee your point, if you are going to be strict over the "canon" definition. But it doesn't change the fact that for pretty much everyone who has had anything to do with the show (that has cared), NCC-1700 has equalled the Constitution, and if it ever came up in the future, that is the number and name they would almost certainly use.
Originally posted by newark:
For me, the class ship has no known registry.
quote:That's the way I see it, I think.
Originally posted by newark:
Though not mentioned, this does kill the notion the registry of the U.S.S. Constitution is seen or could be seen in "Space Seed".
When we did see the registry NCC-1700, it is disassociated from any name (ex. "Court Martial")or on a starship with Connie specifications with no corresponding name (ex. "Datalore"). I discount the computer displays in the movies for reasons of poor quality resolution and the Technical Manual is becoming a very rare item. For me, the class ship has no known registry.
This is my shiplist for the Connies:
1st Tier Identification: Starship Class
2nd Tier Identification: Mk IX
3rd Tier Identification: Constitution Class
4th Tier Identification: U.S.S. Constitution
Production Ships:
Known registries
NCC-956 U.S.S. Eagle
NCC-1017 U.S.S. Constellation
NCC-1657 U.S.S. Potemkin
NCC-1700
NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1701-A U.S.S. Enterprise
NCC-1831 U.S.S. Intrepid
NCC-1895 U.S.S. Endeavour
Unknown registries
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Defiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Excalibur
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Exeter
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Hood
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Lexington
Ships of unknown class
NCC-1371 U.S.S. Republic
NCC-1664
NCC-1672
NCC-1685
NCC-1697
NCC-1703
NCC-1709
NCC-1718
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Antares
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Carolina
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Valiant
NCC-xxxx U.S.S. Yorktown
quote:Because it looked like a Constitution?
How do we know the Exeter is a Constitution?
quote:Sorry, I didn't know it had appeared. Which episode was this?
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:Because it looked like a Constitution?
How do we know the Exeter is a Constitution?
quote:Uhm.... Well, it's not exactly TOS, but you get quite a clear view of the blueprints that Scotty is looking at in ST:VI. They quite clearly show that at least the refit/-A Enterprise is a Constitution class. I don't have the film grabs handy, but I'm pretty certain it also gives the registry as NCC-1700, tho admit I might well be wrong and mentally placing that in my memory.
Originally posted by newark:
Though not mentioned, this does kill the notion the registry of the U.S.S. Constitution is seen or could be seen in "Space Seed".
When we did see the registry NCC-1700, it is disassociated from any name (ex. "Court Martial")or on a starship with Connie specifications with no corresponding name (ex. "Datalore"). I discount the computer displays in the movies for reasons of poor quality resolution and the Technical Manual is becoming a very rare item. For me, the class ship has no known registry.
This is my shiplist for the Connies:
}SNIPPERS{
quote:The association originated with Matt Jefferies, who designed the registry number of the Enterprise (NCC-1701) as an indicator that the ship was the first vessel of Starfleet's 17th heavy cruiser design to be constructed after the prototype. (NCC-1700, the Constitution.)
Originally posted by newark:
So, the question arises, where did the association originated? Did it originate in the production offices of TOS, or in fandom?
Holy speculation overload, Batman!
quote:I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
quote:That's kind of the point. Look at it like this:
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
A broad, generic term that eventually came to mean a variety of large spacefaring warp-capable Federation vessels. What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
quote:So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate.
quote:Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
quote:It can also be explained by the fact that:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:Sisko used this term in "Emissary".
I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
quote:Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
quote:You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.
Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?
So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
quote:Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?
quote:Then you just contradicted yourself.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:That's kind of the point.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
quote:Unfortunately, the TOS system doesn't work even in TOS, so that's a bit impossible.
Originally posted by Harry:
With all respect, but to really explain the TOS "system", we need to at least ignore ENT, but probably also the Okudan TNG system. If we know how the TOS system works within the context of TOS only, we could then try to fit it into the ENT and TNG systems.
quote:In that case the dedication plaque would not have needed to say "Starship Class" because it would have been clear from the USS prefix. And even if it had said it, it should have said "Starship", if that is indeed its status, rather than "Starship Class", which means what I have already said.
Originally posted by Harry:
There's another half-hearted explanation in the fact that it the organization is also called Starfleet. A Starfleet of Starships and Starbases. It could be that during TOS "Starship" referred to a ship in SF service, as opposed to a civilian "spaceship".
quote:It makes so much more sense if Starship is a class. It would be like saying "I didn't know this was an Intrepid!" Surely he realised that Starfleet personnel wearing Starfleet uniforms had a Starfleet ship?
Originally posted by Harry:
Perhaps "Starship Class" refers to the "Class One" for main ships (from the SFTM) and "Class Two" for shuttles (from that Voyager episode). But then, why did Mudd at one time claim "he didn't know this was a Starship!". Or did that only mean he didn't know it was a Starfleet ship?
quote:That's why we are here.
Originally posted by Harry:
This entire weird TOS thing leaves me with the distinct impression that several behind-the-scenes people had their own system, but never bothered to tell each other. The fuzzy fandom interference doesn't help either.
quote:1) I don't see how not having watched the one particular episode in which this term occurs makes me resource deficient.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Okay, much of this was answered while my post was in editing, but either way...
quote:Rewatch the DS9 pilot and you will see the light as Sisko mentioned it there, my resource deficient friend...
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:I can't say I have ever heard anyone say "Runabout Class" before.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Maybe Starship Class means the same as Runabout Class does.
quote:You absolutely missed the point of what I said. Why would they have a "Starship Class"...after the term was already used to identify the NX and later the Galaxy Class??? Does it then mean that those ships, too, are of the "Starship Class" as well?? A starship is a starship and the term "Starship class" defines the generic term for what it is, a starship. Much like the Runabout Class is a Runabout in broad, generic terms - but a Danube Class in more specific terms. Sisko never said: "Lets go take a Danube to Bajor"...Even though we have heard Picard say "This is the Federation Starship Enterprise". Hell for that matter, when he hailed the Enterprise-C he refrained from naming his ship specifically, but still managed to say: "This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard from the Federation Starship...a Federation Starship..." again implying the term as a generic identification to 'any ship of the stars', until proved otherwise.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Well for one, the system which you are referring was not designed until the Excelsior came around. It does not make sense to have "Starship Class" meaning anything other than "Of the same design as a ship called Starship", as it has meant nothing else in any other Star Trek series, and means nothing else now.
Archer calls his ship a "starship". Picard calls his ship a "starship". Why, between these two time periods, would SF decide that only one design of ship is in fact a "starship"?
So on the one hand it's a generic term for pretty much anything, and on the other it's a specific designation for a type of ship (Constitution Class)? Surely it can't be both? If it's generic in ENT and TNG, why would it be different in TOS?
quote:Well, it could have been all in the writing (remember how everyone thought of the existance of the "Discovery" because of the writing??). Otherwise, I believe I answered that when I said something like: "The E-D was the "Federation Starship Enterprise", implying that "Starship" is a generic term for pretty much anything, a term coined when the original Enterprise was conceived, and later honed once the number of classes designed began to inflate. A Galaxy Class surely isnt a "Starship Class" and the NX isnt a "STarship Class" yet they were called a 'starship', much the same the Original Enterprise was called a starship. It makes even less sense to designate a "Starship Class" to a design when the term is continued to be associated with other non-Constitution Class ships, both before and after the ship was designed.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
If it means all spacegoing vessels, why, when he scanned the Constellation, didn't Spock say "its a Constitution", so Kirk would know it wasn't another type of "starship", like a Hermes or Ptolemy?
quote:Then you just contradicted yourself.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:That's kind of the point.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
What makes the Connie any more of a "Starship" than the NX? Didn't Archer call his ship a "starship" at one point or another?
quote:Incidentally, that sketch is for the refit Enterprise of Phase II. I believe the book it appears in tries to pass it off as a TOS sketch, or has misleading captioning, but look at it. It is clearly one of his sketches for Phase II, with the redesigned pylons, nacelles, and so on. He even refers to the registry NCC-1701A, suggesting that "A" represents the refit version of the first ship of the seventeenth class, an idea later abandoned for TMP and quasi-resurrected for TVH.
Originally posted by Harry:
That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.
quote:Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
[QUOTE]2) Starship Class does not "define the generic erm for what it is, a starship". The word "Starship" does that. Ignoring the "Runabout Class" (the Danube Class Runabout is the only Class of Runabout, and so it could be called the only Runabout Class - the same is not true of the Connie), have you ever heard anything like "freighter class", "aircraft carrier class", "frigate class", or "starship class" used in dialogue in ST or in real life? As I have said about a billion times, X Class means one thing, and one thing only - the class of ships of which X was the first.
Jefferies Sketch #1: ~1966 // deprecated, because no-one ever used it
17th CRUISER DESIGN
Jefferies interview:
17th MAJOR DESIGN
Jefferies Sketch #2: ~1966 // the origins of Starship class
USS ENTERPRISE
SPACE CRUISER
STARSHIP CLASS
Dedication Plaque: 1966 // probably pulled straight from the sketches
USS ENTERPRISE
STARSHIP CLASS
SAN FRANSISCO
Space Seed: 1967 // Adds Mk IX and Constitution class
PRIMARY PHASER L,R
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS
SFTM: 1975 // FJ (tries to) expand the Space Seed system and adds Class I
CLASS I STARSHIP
HEAVY CRUISER CLASS
MOD: MK IX
-and-
CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
CONSTITUTION CLASS STARSHIPS
=====
STARSHIP MK IX == CONSTITUTION CLASS == CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
STARSHIPS
MK CLASS CATEGORY
I
II
III
IV
V
VI PTOLEMY CLASS I TRANSPORT/TUG
VII HERMES CLASS I SCOUT
VIIb CYGNUS CLASS I SCOUT
VIII SALADIN CLASS I DESTROYER
IX CONSTITUTION CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
X FEDERATION CLASS I DREADNOUGHT
USS ENTERPRISE NCC-1701
CONSTITUTION CLASS MK IX STARSHIP
CLASS I HEAVY CRUISER
USS ENTENTE NCC-2120
FEDERATION CLASS MK X STARSHIP
CLASS I DREADNOUGHT
TRANSPORT CONTAINERS (TYPE FJ)
MK REGISTRY CATEGORY
I NCC-C1000 BULK LIQUIDS
II NCC-C2000 DRY BULK
III NCC-C3000 REEFERS
IV NCC-C4000 CLASS I STARLINER
V NCC-C5000 PRODUCTS
SS ANDORIA NCC-C4024
MK IV TRANSPORT CONTAINER (TYPE FJ)
CLASS I STARLINER
quote:I'm not entirely sure I see how that applies - the first example seems to be like calling Voyager a "Bio Neural Cruiser" or the Dauntless a "Quantum Slipstream Cruiser". The last example seems to be like calling Voyager 74600-Class.
Originally posted by Shik:
Actually, quite often. When the Ticonderoga-class CGs & the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs were proposed & launched, they were (& still are) colloquially referred to as "AEGIS cruisers" or "AEGIS destroyers" based solely on the radar/fire control system they were built around. The Seawolf-class subs SHOULD have been SSN-774 to SSN-776, but the project was call the "SSN-21" project, meaning a sub for the 21st century & some idiot thought that was the hull number, so now those are SSN-21 to SSN-23--a technical if not actual reuse of numbers. The follow-on design to the Nimitzclass carrier is the CVNX project. Los Angeles-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even Sturgeons were 637-class boats.
And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS Virginia SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "Virginia-class" of ships.
quote:So I'm not allowed to use the Dedication Plaque which was (theoretically) in every episode, but other people can use schematics seen on a tiny screen that are only visible when you get the original from the producers?
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
You know Phoenix, you are debating a never-seen-clearly-enough-to-be-read-plaque that simply reads "Starship Class" on something that was designed to indicate the only style of ship Starfleet had, LONG before the idea was conceived to make a second class of starship (the Reliant), nearly 15 years later.
quote:I'm not sure I follow this argument. You claim as an example of a second Runabout Class a ship that only existed in an alternate timeline years after Sisko made his comment? Even if it does exist (which seems unlikely, as Harry supposedly designed it, and he was 70,000 light years away at the time) it certainly didn't exist in Emissary, when the comment was made.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
And not to waste space as you did quoting things and not specifying what you were replying to...the concept of a Yellowstone class, whether or not it can be deemed existant, is at least a second "Runabout Class" ship seen. You cannot continue to deny the existance of something that is a cold hard fact.
quote:If the blueprints and schematics of the ship show it to be a Constitution Class, it seems likely that Scotty would think of it as that - especially as he was close to it. Sub-Classes would be different to one another, and Scotty would be aware of every single way in which his ship was not just a run-of-the-mill Starship Class.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Picard noted the holodeck Enterprise bridge (in "Relics") as a "Constitution Class"...Scotty didn't reply "Erm, its a Starship Class, sir"...especially considering how 'close' he was to 'her'...thus identifying it SPECIFICALLY as a Constitution Class and therefore indicating that the term belongs to the TOS ship and supporting the idea that "Starship Class" is generic to any Federation/Starfleet STARSHIP. This is a cold hard fact. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.
quote:Well, someone went around saying "This is the Federation Starship Federation", didn't they?
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
There never was a "USS Starship", besides being completely redundant, it just sounds silly. Why use a term "Starship" to both identify a specific ship, but then to also apply it to ALL ships prior to it and preceeding it. That would be like deciding to call all (of what we know as) 'starships' - instead 'excelsiors' - whereas Picard would be of the "Federation Excelsior Enterprise"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship Starship"
quote:That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes
Originally posted by Griffworks:
As to the whole "starship class" debate, I'm inclined to agree with what I feel that Franz Joseph was getting at: the term "starship" applies to all "large" vessels in Star Fleet use at a given time and that Constitution is indeed the class name for which Enterprise belongs. "Starship" simply refers to the overall designation of ships that meet certain requirements, which I seem to recall is listed in the "StarFleet Technical Manual", but am too lazy to look up at the moment. This also goes along with our current U.S. Navy's practice of naming a specific ship class after the lead ship, while using a basic technology label for all ships that meet basic mission requirements, such as the AEGIS class missile cruiser - and there's no ship named "U.S.S. AEGIS", either....
quote:My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense.
Originally posted by Griffworks:
Use of phrase "United Star Ship Enterprise" in a few episodes of TOS by Kirk - and maybe others - indicates to me that U.S.S. stands for "United Star Ship", tho it's never specifically stated as such. I take it as an implication, tho.
quote:Or, perhaps, you might just abbreviate it twice. United (Federation of Planets) Star(fleet) Ship = United Star Ship = USS.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?
We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.
quote:I think it makes perfect sense, personally. After all, the model that Gene Roddenbarry was copying at the time was the US Navy and standard naval parlance. You didn't name a class of ship after the purpose it served, but the lead ship in the classification. Thus, it should be Constitution class, if you follow that line of thinking, not Starship.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
[QUOTE]That's what I always thought, but it doesn't seem to fit in with other things. Oh well, I think I'll just give up on TOS and watch some Enterprise episodes
quote:I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously.
My only problem with this (which is what I always assumed it meant) is that it doesn't make any sense.
USS today stands for United States Ship - i.e. a Ship of the United States.
SO what does United Star Ship mean? A Ship from a United Star? A Star Ship that is United?
We know that SF is officially the UFP Starfleet. If I was building the first ship of the UFP Starfleet, I'll call it a UFP Starfleet Ship, or USS.
In anticipation of replies: I know it's not canon, I know it has never been mentioned in dialogue or on screen - it's just logical. If you don't like what I think, then disagree. Just don't flame me.
quote:Yes, but people actually call the United States of America the United States, don't they? In fact United States is more common than United States of America. I doubt Federation citizens shorten United Federation of Planets to United.
Originally posted by Griffworks:
I think that United StarShip makes perfect sense, obviously.
H.M.S. stands for "Her/His Majesty's Ship", right? Well, instead of saying "United Federation of Planets StarShip", just shorten it, just as "United States Ship" is shortened from "United States of America Ship", if you think about it. We don't call them "USAS", do we...?
quote:What about the decals of the Enterprise and the Reliant?
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?
quote:In that case I would suggest there are two options:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Pike (and Kirk) also said on at least two occasions "This is the United Space Ship Enterprise".
One question. There are three standard hailings for our intrepid crews:
"This is the Federation Starship Enterprise."
"This is blah blah blah of the USS Enterprise."
"This is the starship Enterprise".
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?
quote:Well, yeah. However, I believe we're talking about spoken lines, not what appears on the hull of the ships.
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:What about the decals of the Enterprise and the Reliant?
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Did anyone ever say "This is the starship USS Enterprise"? Or "Federation starship USS Enterprise"?
quote:Kirk, in TSFS.
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Who said Grissom was a "scout-class"?
quote:Incorrect. This sketch whcich appears in the TOS Sketchbook is indeed a TOS pre-production drawing from when Jefferies was still refining the exterior design of the ship.
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:
quote:Incidentally, that sketch is for the refit Enterprise of Phase II. I believe the book it appears in tries to pass it off as a TOS sketch, or has misleading captioning, but look at it. It is clearly one of his sketches for Phase II, with the redesigned pylons, nacelles, and so on. He even refers to the registry NCC-1701A, suggesting that "A" represents the refit version of the first ship of the seventeenth class, an idea later abandoned for TMP and quasi-resurrected for TVH.
Originally posted by Harry:
That one sketch where he explains the 1701 does give the impression he tried to make up a system for it.
Jonah claims the system was in place during TOS, but I have never seen any evidence for that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that all I've seen is the Phase II sketch. If that's the case, there was no system in TOS, but Jeffries briefly tried to retrofit one into the registry during the '70s. Any reverse extrapolation back to TOS is wishful thinking, unless there's some hidden cache of unseen drawings or never-reported Jeffries interviews. The USS Constellation didn't screw up some preexisting system: there was no system until Phase II, and that was abandoned.
quote:I don't think he meant Grissom...at least, I never interpreted it that way.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
quote:Kirk, in TSFS.
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Who said Grissom was a "scout-class"?
Chekov: I'd swear something was there sir, but I might have imagined it.
Kirk: What did you see, Chekov?
Chekov: For an instant... A scout class vessel.
Kirk: Could be Grissom. Patch in the hailing frequency. U.S.S. Grissom, this is Enterprise calling. Come in, please.
quote:As for my two cents:
Originally posted by Timo:
I'd say that ST3 is good evidence that the Grissom *wasn't* a scout-class vessel. Chekov says he sees a scout. Kirk's response is one of *doubt* and *concern*!
I got the impression that the Grissom could in certain special conditions be *mistaken* for a scout class vessel, which Kirk thought might have happened. But he said that only to placate the crew - secretly, he was concerned that if there really was a scout class vessel out there, then he was leading his friends into some sort of unscheduled trouble.
quote:Later...
150
CHEKOV
Sir, Starfleet calling Grissom
again. A warning about us.
KIRK
Response?
CHEKOV
(a beat)
Nothing. As before.
KIRK
What's Grissom up to?... Will they
join us, or fire on us...?
(thinks)
Chekov, break radio silence. Send
my compliments to Captain Esteban.
CHEKOV
Aye, sir.
quote:I think "doubt" or "concern" is a bit extreme... I believe, based on the first quote, Kirk was still wondering whose side the Grissom was on. If, indeed, that was the Grissom, as they established from sensor contact something resembling Grissom was in orbit, they were attempting to hail her again, curious on her allegiance....
165 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE - FAVORING CHEKOV
At the science station, the blue light of the scanner flickering on his face.
CHEKOV
I'd swear something was there sir,
but I might have imagined it.
KIRK
What did you see, Chekov?
CHEKOV
For an instant... A scout class
vessel.
KIRK
(thoughtfully)
Could be Grissom.
(then)
Patch in the hailing frequency.
(at Chekov's nod)
U.S.S. Grissom, this is Enterprise
calling. Come in, please.
quote:Incidentally, that's what Duras identified Enterprise NX-01 as in "Judgement" (although without the "Federation" bit, obviously). Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
...also if you really want to be anal...the script identified the Grissom as: A mid-sized Federation Science Vessel..., and the Klingons identified the Enterprise (in Klingon terms) as a "Federation Battle Cruiser".
quote:The Kronos One was identified as a "Klingon Battle Cruiser" by the Computer/PA on ST6, so maybe it's mutual, or maybe it's just a general classification interchangable with "Heavy Cruiser"...as that is what the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, and Enterprise-C were recognized as by Starfleet.
Phoenix Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
quote:TNG Angel One mentions Romulan Battle Cruisers (presumbly Warbirds)
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote:The Kronos One was identified as a "Klingon Battle Cruiser" by the Computer/PA on ST6, so maybe it's mutual, or maybe it's just a general classification interchangable with "Heavy Cruiser"...as that is what the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, and Enterprise-C were recognized as by Starfleet.
Phoenix Perhaps for the Klingons, Federation "Starships" or "Heavy Cruisers" are "Battle Cruisers" (they do like fighting, after all).
quote:With all due respect, I think that you're seroiusly reaching for this answer on this one, Timo. I was not at all left w/any impression of Kirk being concerned beyond not knowing if he'd have to fire on a Federation ship or not. That's it. He already knew that Grissom was there, right?
Originally posted by Timo:
I'd say that ST3 is good evidence that the Grissom *wasn't* a scout-class vessel. Chekov says he sees a scout. Kirk's response is one of *doubt* and *concern*!
I got the impression that the Grissom could in certain special conditions be *mistaken* for a scout class vessel, which Kirk thought might have happened. But he said that only to placate the crew - secretly, he was concerned that if there really was a scout class vessel out there, then he was leading his friends into some sort of unscheduled trouble.
quote:And I'd wager that you're wrong here, too. I've got one family member and two friends who've been thru the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland here in The States. Core classes there, as in all branchs of the United States Armed Forces, get pretty in-depth about the history and traditions of the service. Heck, in the USAF, we received the equivalent of 6 college credit hours worth of history, tradition and customs & courtesy's for our Service.
As for "USS", I'm sure Starfleet is full of people who *don't really know* what the thing means. The Fleet must have its share of people who'd misplace Deneva on the stellar charts, or think that Maazarites are the guys with lots of fur, and still are competent enough to serve as top officers. The deeper meaning of "USS" isn't likely to be a top topic to be taught in any of the Academy lectures, really.
quote:I dunno. I'd doubt that there's many people serving in the royal navy who don't know what "HMS" stands for.
Originally posted by Timo:
As for "USS", I'm sure Starfleet is full of people who *don't really know* what the thing means. The Fleet must have its share of people who'd misplace Deneva on the stellar charts, or think that Maazarites are the guys with lots of fur, and still are competent enough to serve as top officers. The deeper meaning of "USS" isn't likely to be a top topic to be taught in any of the Academy lectures, really.
quote:I believe the USS Prometheus was referred to as a Long-Range Tactical Cruiser.
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Perhaps they have some more classes (the Prometheus or Sovereign may be Battleships, for instance)
quote:Defiant-class crews would disagree with you there, I should think.
Thus it would seem we have, in descending order of power:
...
Escort
Scout (not sure of the last two's order)
quote:I don't think that the Defiant Class is really the best example of an escort. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Defiant was "officially" classed as an Escort, but wasn't really one - Starfleet lacking a proper term to classify a ship with very strong weapons yet very small. Perhaps the term Tactical Cruiser was invented partly for this reason, to classify a largish ship with very strong weapons, as I suspect Dreadnoughts became obsolete after the peace with the Klingons in TUC.
Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
Defiant-class crews would disagree with you there, I should think.
quote:I don't think Starfleet needs to resort to marketing tricks. Who does it need to sell them to?
Originally posted by Timo:
Or then "long range tactical cruiser" is your typical manufacturer nonsense, and the ship in actual practice will be known as a run-of-the-mill "light cruiser".
It's an old marketing trick to invent flashy new names for things that in practice fall neatly into existing niches. From what we saw of the Prometheus, she could simply be the next Intrepid with one fancy extra feature (for which the user might never figure a good use). "Warship", my ass. She has fewer phaser strips than the Intrepid (or the Nova!), and no visible torpedo launchers. She's probably still half-finished anyway.
Timo Saloniemi
quote:When did they say the ASDB is selling them? Don't all the dedication plaques have Starfleet personnel as the design teams? Didn't Sisko help to design the Defiant? Aren't they all built in SF shipyards?
Originally posted by Timo:
Starfleet is the sucker that buys these things, not the manufacturer. In most cases nowadays, the ASDB seems to be the seller. And regenerative shields is what Kirk already had - give them a minute's rest and they are good as new. I think Starfleet is being had, big time.
quote:I got the impression that the Prometheus Class would be the only one like it (with MVAM anyway). Any smaller, and it would be too fragile, any bigger and it would lose maneuverability and speed, some of its main advantages. There would be no point in an Ambassador Class sized ship trying to separate - it would be too slow.
Originally posted by Timo:
Anyway, if this tech pans out, then it stands to reason that the Prometheii will be among the lighter ships to be built to this standard. Better reserve the more impressive names for the bigger ships that will follow. Ships comparable in size to the Ambassadors at least, since that's the known heavy cruiser yardstick for the 24th century.
quote:As Explorer has never been mentioned in dialogue, is the only classification anyone mentions that isn't in use now, and is completely meaningless and silly, I tend to deny its existence.
Originally posted by Harry:
But Starfleet most likely doesn't take firepower as the decisive factor in categorising ships. Sure, the brand new Prometheus class Cruiser could have more firepower than the Nebula class Explorer, but it doesn't remotely have the same amount of labs and sensors. I can't imagine a Prometheus being sent on a "continuing mission to seek out new life", not least because you'd have to maintain everyting in three-fold.
And with regards to that classification, I'd rather believe it's a "long-range tactical Cruiser" than a "Long-Range Tactical Cruiser", if you know what I mean.
quote:Thanks for the clarification. I have watched MIAB too many times, and didn't think that classification was mentioned.
Originally posted by Timo:
It could also be that the E-C was an Explorer, yet would have become a Heavy Cruiser had she survived until the 2360s.
In any case, the Prometheus is neither Long Range Tactical Cruiser nor long range tactical Cruiser. The episode dialogue merely says the was "designed for deep space tactical missions". The size of the vessel suggests a Cruiser designation, although only in the sense that she's between the Constellation and Ambassador canonical 24th century cruisers in size - the size would also match the Frigate designation of the New Orleanses just fine.
Timo Saloniemi
quote:It's "Message in a Bottle".
Originally posted by Griffworks:
Uhm... "MIAB"? Shouldn't that be "Ship In A Bottle" or "SIAB"? Or am I off my rocker and this isn't referring to the "Star Trek: Voyager" (VOY) episode?
quote:I still think it's silly. The vast majority of SF ships "explore". Granted, a few will sit around Earth waiting for transwarp conduits to open (some of which are supposedly "Explorers"), a few more will be ferrying Admirals around, and some will be patrolling, but most of them seem to be designed with exploration in mind. And exploration has nothing to do with size, tactical ability or durability, which is what all the other classifications signify, but with specific missions.
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
SiaB is a TNG episode with Moriarty...
MiaB is a VGR episode with Andy Dick
have we found an episode that could be abbreviated MOAB yet?
BTW, most SotSF apologists have reconciled 'Explorer' to be the short form of 'Exploratory Cruiser' or 'Heavy' or 'Large' Exploratory Cruiser.
I question whether the Ambassadors would be retypified from EXs to HCs in the post Galaxy-era (since they still seem to be quite similar in capability to the GCS) but I think the Excelsiors definitely would be (according to Okuda and Sternbach sources, Excelsior was an explorer too.. hey, at least its better than 'space control ship'.. ugggh)..
quote:Oops....
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
SiaB is a TNG episode with Moriarty...
MiaB is a VGR episode with Andy Dick
>SNIP<
quote:I think you're confusing two different functions. The regenerative qualities of Kirk's shields was simply a rest. When a shield system is hit it causes the generator to heat up as it exerts effort to defend the ship. Coolant systems take care of this to a point, but as the coolant system loses effectiveness so does the shields-- thus as the shield loses effectiveness it goes down in percentage. If you let the system cool off, it will "regenerate" but it isn't the defination of the term Regenerative Shields.
Originally posted by Timo:
And regenerative shields is what Kirk already had - give them a minute's rest and they are good as new. I think Starfleet is being had, big time.
quote:That's not really true, though. The Excalibur was what the model was first labeled as *after* Greg Jein modified it to its "modern" look for "Redemption" (TNG). The only reason we some shots of it in the ep as an NCC-1701-C style vessel is because they mixed in some stock footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise" with the new footage of the modified model. So the Excalibur is *really* one of the "new" style Ambassadors. (This of course doesn't necessarily mean your theory doesn't work, it just eliminates an onscreen example of it. There's still, of course, the fact that from DS9 we see that the two Excelsior variants are both still in service.)
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
...the Excalibur, seen to be of the "original" design shared by the Enterprise-C...
quote:Pardon me, but I can't seem to figure what you mean by this?
...We know Kirk helped on the Excelsior redesign that led to the Enterprise-B...
quote:Its not from film, so it certainly cannot be canon, and thats what we tend to be about in here.
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Mim: I can't remember if it was in the actual film or the novelization, but Kirk was at least on the team working on the redesign, if not heading it up himself. I don't see what the difficulty is...
quote:I think that besides the *old* footage of the Enterprises' hangin' in space -- the *new* footage was when you got the nice ass shot of a handful of vessels leaving the starbase.
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Going to watch "Redemption" tonight. Curious about that Excalibur thing. I only remember seeing it in the stock scenes of the Enterprise-C hanging in space next to the Enterprise-D, reused from Yesterday's Enterprise".
--Jonah
quote:Checks subject of thread. Hmm.
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
Its not from film, so it certainly cannot be canon, and thats what we tend to be about in here.
quote:In the Star Trek Sketch Book Jefferies says that 1701 were chosen for clarity. NC was the US designation on his own plane and that he added an extra C to make it different from Place. It just happened that the Soviet designation was CCC - which was a nice coincidence.
Originally posted by thelastguardian:
'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.
Shane
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:In the Star Trek Sketch Book Jefferies says that 1701 were chosen for clarity. NC was the US designation on his own plane and that he added an extra C to make it different from planes. It just happened that the Soviet designation was CCC - which was a nice coincidence.
Originally posted by thelastguardian:
'NCC' was chosen to precede '1701' because 'N' is the designated fuselage letter for civilian aircraft registered in the United States (as in N6741U, for example), 'C' was chosen by Matt Jeffries for a personal reason I cannot recall, and the final 'C' was added for rhythmic balance.
Shane