I was browsing over the dedication plaque of the Tsiolkovsky the other day, & found something interesting. The stardate for the ship's commissioning is 40291.7. This is roughly one year before the Enterprise-D was commissioned.
Now before I continue, I realize that "The Naked Now" was only the second episode of TNG, and that many things were not yet firmly established. However, that still won't taint my argument.
Anyway, although the ship was only a year old as of 2364, she had a registry number of NCC-53911. I believe that this early in the series, Okuda (or whoever made the plaque; presumably it was him) believed that the highest registry numbers of new ships in 2364 would be 5XXXX, not 7XXXX that would be established later.
Therefore, I speculate that Okuda thought that the Oberth class Tsiolkovsky would be a new design, and the new model would accordingly have his information printed on it.
However, as was done in "Encounter at Farpoint" with the Hood, a decision was made to use an old movie model, since TPTB didn't want to spend money building new models if the show got cancelled after one season. Hence, the Grissom was used, without even relabeling the model from its use in STIII. So thanks to the shortsightedness of the producers, we have to accept the fact that Grissom-type ships, although probably a century old, are still being constructed in 2363, and that "Oberth class" now refers to that type of ship.
Would anyone know of any further information which would corroborate my theory? Such as what was printed on the Grissom's plaque (if it even had one)? Chekov referred to a "Scout class" vessel while trying to contect the Grissom, but that could have meant the type of ship, not the actual class name.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Tsiolkovsky was probably mothballed during a pause in starfleet exploration and re-commisioned much later when the need for a science ship was needed, rather than building a whole new ship.
Hence the 53911 registry number.
Possibly, the ship's original name was re-assigned to a newer ship and starfleet gave the older ship the name of Tsiolkovsky... but kept the registry number to save on expensive hull paint. Did the model really say "Tsiolkovsky" on the hull? That name would have circled the entire saucer!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
As he said, the model was still labelled with all the Grissom signage from ST3.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hmm... Time to start a "design the realOberth" thread over in the Creativity section...?
That would be not only interesting, but very useful. We could even possibly use Sternbach's proposed design for the Pegasus... I think with the exception of the Vico, all the "Oberths" we saw in TNG were supposed to be some other ship -- the Tsiolkovski, the Biko, the Pegasus...
--Jonah
P.S. So would we re-adopt Glenn or Sagan from fandom...? Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't see a problem with that design being used for over a century. It's probably a very effective ship for the kinds of things it's meant to do. They look like very mission specific ships though. Not alot of room for variable mission equipment, so the ships are either built for a specific mission type or have to be refitted.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I don't see why it couldn't be a long-held design either. Grissom had only a three-digit registry and it looked pretty advanced for its time.
It may be an updated version for which there was a similarly shaped TOS predecessor. That might be cool to design!
More than one shipyard cranks out starships, so the Tsiolkovsky's registry could probably be explained somehow that way. NCCs aren't strictly chonoligical, although that's the major trend.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I might be remembering this wrong, but doesn't the Art Of Star Trek suggest that originally, they were going to use a painting for the Naked Now, and Probert drew up a nice big picture based on what would become the Ambassador-class? That would explain the registry. Although not the date, but considering that at that point in the series, the "4" at the beginning of the stardate was there for the not-overly scientific reason of "It's the 24th century", I don't think there was too much thinking going on.
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
the popular consensus on the 5 digit registries on TOS/Movie era ships is that they were built in later series.. perhaps the 5xxxx Oberths were the last ones ever built, around the 2340s/50s. [EDIT -- of course, the 5xxxx registry comes from the plaque which also lists the commissioning stardate in 2363.. yuk!]
the FASA game actually postulated this, probably the only sensible fact included in the TNG Officer's Manual (they even provided a new class name for the reoutfitted 24th century variant, Sagan-class vs the old Gagarin-class)
BTW, i think the Oberth might just be the ship with the most different names.. Oberth from Okuda and TNG, Gagarin from FASA, Sagan from FASA TNG, Komarov from SotSF, Garneau and Glenn from fandom
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Also Shepard from another set of fandom blueprints.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I might be remembering this wrong, but doesn't the Art Of Star Trek suggest that originally, they were going to use a painting for the Naked Now, and Probert drew up a nice big picture based on what would become the Ambassador-class? That would explain the registry.
I always thought that painting was meant to be a matte to represent the USS Horatio not seen in "Conspiracy".
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
just thought of something.. what if Tsiolkovski was built with a 5xxxx number in the 2340s/50s series that should be the end of the Oberths, was put into civilian use and then recommissioned to Starfleet on the 40xxx 2363 stardate?
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis: Also Shepard from another set of fandom blueprints.
i wonder if this is cause enough to put the ST:IV Shepard as an Oberth? the name fits
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:was put into civilian use and then recommissioned to Starfleet on the 40xxx 2363 stardate?
Could explain why Picard referred to the ship as "S.S. Tsiolkovsky".
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
...But not why it was filled with people (mostly) in Starfleet uniforms.
Mark
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I meant that Picard just forgot for a moment about the fact that the Tsiolkovsky was recommissioned as a Starfleet vessel a year ago.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Jeez, people. If you've seen that painting from Probert's site, you could at least have read the caption. He created it to be the Hood, for the shot in "Encounter at Farpoint" where the two ships rendezvous over Deneb IV. Then the producers decided they wanted to go with a model instead.
--Jonah
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I don't have a problem with an Oberth being commissioned in 2363... actually I should say recomissioned. But I do have a problem with thinking that the NCC number is from 2363, the original comissioning should go back at least two or three decades. As for why an Oberth would have been built as late as 2350's--- don't ask me, perhaps it was brought out of mothballs like many ships during the Dominion War... but in this case it was for the Cardassian War? [Not to fight you dimwits, but to fill in where other ships had been called to the front]
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Jeez, people. If you've seen that painting from Probert's site, you could at least have read the caption. He created it to be the Hood, for the shot in "Encounter at Farpoint" where the two ships rendezvous over Deneb IV. Then the producers decided they wanted to go with a model instead.
--Jonah
That's right. I forgot it was on his site. I mostly think of it as the first gatefold in The Art of Star Trek, because he autographed my copy and corrected the caption.
I got an email from Andy today about that subject, and he sent me a drawing he'd done comparing all the Federation starships seen up to the point of Encounter at Farpoint, including his design for the Ambassador class, which he has at a length of 1,721 feet.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Oo! Would you be willing to forward that drawing to me?
--Jonah
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Oo! Would you be willing to forward that drawing to me?
--Jonah
Not without his permission...which I have asked for. But we'll see what he says.
He told me something else cool about his Ambassador design, but I'm not sure if I can spill the beans yet (hee hee).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ohhhh....is the drawing detailed enough for me to build a physical model of? That would rock....I'd even build one you could give to him!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Something cool about the design??
If you stare at it long enough it looks like a naked female?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hell, that applies to most of the hero ships.
--Jonah
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Ohhhh....is the drawing detailed enough for me to build a physical model of? That would rock....I'd even build one you could give to him!
No, the drawing Andy sent isn't very detailed. He said he did do a more detailed elevation of the Ambassador class that was used to make the model for the Observation Lounge, and must've been the basis for his painting.
This drawing, which I'm assuming is mid-1987 vintage lists the ship lengths as:
That was his understanding of the vessel sizes when TNG first started.
So, keping this on topic, is 395' about what the Oberth class is assumed to be, or has it upsized like the BOP?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
395' = 120m
Why does that number fill me with dread?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
LOL The Oberth Class 'Defiant'! (or is that Valiant Class 'Oberth'!?!) Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
no relation to the fabled Oberth Class 'Valiant' sung of in times of olde?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:That would be not only interesting, but very useful. We could even possibly use Sternbach's proposed design for the Pegasus... I think with the exception of the Vico, all the "Oberths" we saw in TNG were supposed to be some other ship -- the Tsiolkovski, the Biko, the Pegasus...
Yeah, I had forgotten about that...I believe the Biko was mentioned as being a freighter, although they used the good old Cochrane stock footage (and was listed in the 'pedia as Olympic class). Then there was an ep where Wesley returned to the Enterprise "by shuttle," yet again TPTB used the Oberth stock footage.
I think that even in "Realm of Fear" where we saw new footage of the Oberth Yosemite, it was supposed to be a "Yosemite class" ship, wasn't it? Or was that just for the Trieste?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hell, I don't know. I've lost track of when the ship mission display on the E-D's conference room screen went from being Merced-class to Yosemite-class -- or vice versa...
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okuda told me he change the class of the Trieste on the display as a result of the Yosemite's appearance, in order to avoid confusion. I'll see if i can dig up the e-mail...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)