I've written and illustrated an article on my site about the history of Starfleet markings from Starfleet's beginning up through the late 24th Century.
I know the Flare group always have good insights and opinions, and I would appreciate feedback about the article. Are there things that seem outright wrong? Is there something I've majorly missed? Is it just great as it is now?
I hope it is both informative and useful. Comments welcome!
Thank you for the information. I was wondering when someone was going to do something like that. This helps with my shuttle and starship design. Thank you again. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Weren't there some differences in the letter styles used in the first TOS pilot and the series? Particlularly, I think, seen in the "R"s "7"s and "1"s. Also, I think in the series they always used "I" instead of "1." Don't ask me why...
Perhaps you might want to add the symbol seen on the Excelsior prototypes and the prototype Grissom from production of STIII.
There's also the rather wierd pennants seen on the Prometheus's nacelles. It looks a bit (but not exactly) like the TNG era symbol but different.
Nice work.
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Good work alround. However I'm certain that the E-E markings are slightly different again from Voyager's markings. (third up from the bottom)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
As has been mentioned in a previous thread - (I can't remember the name of it - but it was within the last week, that it was replied to) the bent yellow boomerang from TOS - is the "Starfleet" Symbol. It was seen in places like Starbases and in Commodore's offices, as well as on Starship hulls. The encyclopaedia never mentioned/drew anything about it.
Also there was the hull markings for the 29th century Relativity.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Also there was the hull markings for the 29th century Relativity.
Not that there is anything special about that one. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Not to be picky or anything - cause it looks great - but I think the 'insignia' needs to be a little more 'tight' - compared to what we see on the ship. I believe the Chronowerx emblem is exactly the same (i.e. Ed Begley Jr. pilfered it).
The 'diamond' is more flush with the underside of the 'delta'.
MMoM: I was thinking of including the Prometheus Class markings. At the time I did the article and gathered my decals, I didn't have the Prometheus drawn, but I was impatient to get the article online.
My focus for these markings are from canon sources, and although some of the Excelsior prototypes ended up at Wolf 359, they haven't been prominent enough to have pics and tons of info included in TMs or Encyclopedias; just a footnote at best.
If you can point me to links of pilot Enterprise markings, that'd be great. I know the AMT decal sheet had serifs on the "7", and generally just the wrong font...don't know about pilot 1701. All photos I can find of the series model had a serif on the "1". I just realized I have to change the "-" to something a lot shorter; it seems to be squarish, not a rectangle.
Reverend: With the exception of the name being inside the stripe on the Ent-E, the markings are the same as Voyager. In your sketch, (very well done diagrams by the way) You have the Ent-E sripes as two distinct lines, where the studio miniature had a thick red solid piece behind the yellow symbol, that splits into two red lines - same as Voyager and Defiant.
Andrew R: I did make mention that the 'boomerang' emblem was the Starfleet symbol for the time. I mentioned that the Enterprise arrowhead was adopted as the 'new' Starfleet symbol.
The scope of my article ends with the Nemesis timeframe, so speculatory 'future' stuff like Relativity isn't in it for now.
-----
Does anyone disagree with the dates I've used to demark the different eras?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The Starfleet Extended Bold font used by the producers have included both the serifed and non-serifed "D" The E-D model had the serifed "D" while her E-D shuttles have used the non-serifed "D", both on the models and the full scale mockups.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Dat:
Yeah, I know both have been used. It's hard to limit my scope as there are so many exceptions. Such as: Does the "D" in Sutherland use one version over another. I guess I can only report on the majority. I may do a separate section on shuttlecraft, which will address this.
Also, notice that the Reliant's NCC-1864 uses the serif version "1", while the similar and still contemporary Bozeman NCC-1941, does not use the serif "1". It makes it really tricky to be too specific without listing ALL starships. Thanks for the input though!
[ December 08, 2002, 07:59: Message edited by: SoundEffect ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Didn't the Enterprise-C have Starfleet Bold with a black outline instead of a red one? Yet another exception.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
No, the Enterprise-C had the red outline too. You may be thinking of the horrible decals from the model kit, which also had Starfleet Bld Ex, all in black, on the nacelle pylons. There's plenty of Enterprise-C studio miniature pics with red outlined registries.
This Studio Pic is not the best, but one I found on short notice. If the outline of the registry were black, it would be far more prominent (as in the color of the actual letter). The red coloration is more obvious around the words "U.S.S. Enterprise"
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I have added an addendum of references and typeface examples for some additional clarification.
The only thing I see that strikes me funny is the typeface used on Daedalus class starships. On your page, you have them using the later font.
The only example we have is from Ben Sisko's desktop model, and you're correct in that the later font is used. But, given Enterprise's registry typeface and the continuity it suggests between NX-01 to NCC-1701, I'd chalk that up to an error on Sisko's part, not definitive proof of any switching-back-and-forth.
(Yes, the Daedalus model typeface bugged me when I saw it. I considered it a screw-up that the designers of Enterprise fixed, hence my opinion.)
Just a thought. Nicely done work you have there!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: As has been mentioned in a previous thread - (I can't remember the name of it - but it was within the last week, that it was replied to) the bent yellow boomerang from TOS - is the "Starfleet" Symbol. It was seen in places like Starbases and in Commodore's offices, as well as on Starship hulls. The encyclopaedia never mentioned/drew anything about it.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QBThe only example we have is from Ben Sisko's desktop model, and you're correct in that the later font is used. But, given Enterprise's registry typeface and the continuity it suggests between NX-01 to NCC-1701, I'd chalk that up to an error on Sisko's part, not definitive proof of any switching-back-and-forth.[/QB]
That's not enough, IMO, to use as an example of a continuity link between ENT and TOS. Keep in mind we know they go from saucer to sphere to saucer again! Why can't the hull marking font change too? If we ignore the font, we're discrediting the pictures of Trek history as shown in the Chronology Ed. I and II. I'll hold to my theory that they got it right until we see a Daedalus Class on screen. Until contradicted by an onscreen presence, Sisko's model and the Chronology pics are cannon, are they not?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The chronology pics' canonicity is iffy. From the model that was on Sisko's desk, we know there was a ship in service that looked like that. From "Power Play" We know that the Essex was a Deadalus Class ship. The only connection we have between the design on Sisko's desk and the Deadalus class is the Encyclopedia and Chronology. We've never seen that design on screen represented as a Daedalus class, though that was obviously the intent.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Since Starfleet seam to constantly switching uniforms, rank indicators and insignia from one decade to another then why can't they switch their typefaces around too?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Regarding the TOS "Enterprise delta"...
The two camps have settled down to a Mexican standoff as to whether the "unique insignia for each ship" posit holds any water. There were enough instances of non-Enterprise personnel wearing the familiar delta symbol that I go with James Dixon's conclusion that the different insignia seen represent different branches of Starfleet service, with the delta being the one for what Franz Joseph called the "Star Fleet Armed Forces" -- the ones who do border patrol and respond to planetary crises and invasions by hostile vessels.
Around the time they redid the uniforms pre-Wrath of Khan (between 2271 and 2278), they then folded all the branches of Starfleet together under the umbrella of that single insignia. This might have something to do with the more militaristic feel Starfleet had in the rest of the movies... something to do with the increased hostilities with the Klingons that lasted until the Khitomer conference in 2291 (regardless of Okuda's timeline, that date fits better).
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: ...the Khitomer conference in 2291 (regardless of Okuda's timeline, that date fits better)
Why?
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I was able to update my article with the unique markings of the Prometheus Class. Chronology of Starfleet Hull Markings Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Hmm...yet another reason to ignore the ridiculous registry number; the markings aren't even in the right format.
I had no idea that the Excelsior's pennant was so different from the Enterprise's, I think I'll be tracing that as a vector and putting it on my Starfleet markings shelf. I actually watched Generations the other day and sure enough, the E-B had exactly the same pennant as the Excelsior.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Hmm...yet another reason to ignore the ridiculous registry number; the markings aren't even in the right format.
Well, I personally like the higher registry myself for the Prometheus. As far as the 'other' format markings, it must've been the concoction of the CGI houses as the Delta Flyer proudly displays that same font only black outline instead of red!
I didn't realize the Excelsior's symbol was tilted upwards until a few days ago when I was watching Trek III on DVD and used the 15x zoom to see the Excelsior start up as Enterprise was backing out of spacedock.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
MMoM: Because I've read and understood all of the points James Dixon uses to construct his Chronology, and it makes a helluva lot more sense to me than Okuda's Chronology.
Read the appendices to Dixon's Chronology sometime (skimming the bits where he bashes Okuda and Shane Johnson), and you'll find all of his data points there.
--Jonah
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the only problem is that Dixon == first class fucking nutjob.. have you ever read his appendices? he's too biased against certain aspects of Trek production to ever make an informed decision about what the intention of the writers was, or to even be accurate to the source material.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And have you ever read the appendices without getting your buttons pushed by those vociferous biases? The latter-day retconned stuff he ignores, and rightly so when I look at the rest of the objective supporting data... That Okuda was well-intentioned doesn't make a lot of his conjectures any less wrong in light of what led to those conjectures...
--Jonah
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
um.. we could spend all day arguing about whether a conjecture could be right or wrong (by its very definition, a conjecture is a non-fact).. but the fact remains that Okuda's system is malleable and makes sense, while Dixon's is fueled by his celibate spite against Paramount having rightful control of their property.
Basically, Dixon really likes shitty Bantam novels and Jackill's blueprints, which suck, and tries to reshape Trek in the image of non-licensed fanboys like himself. the resulting history is a bizarre mirror image, and downright wrong. Star Fleet Battles was not meant to happen in the Star Trek timeline. nor were the Best of Trek magazine compilations.
I'll admit that Okuda's version is less than logical, and i've taken him to task in things ive written on this very board, but his version is a lot more palatable than the good Mr. Dixon's
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Oh, I happily admit Star Fleet Battles is an alternate universe at best. For my personal use, I've chopped all the SFB and "Mirror" universe and other alternate timeline stuff out of my copy of his Chronology. Aside from streamlining it immensely (as these things didn't happen in the "real" Trek universe), the stuff that's left in does support his timeline, and I applaud his efforts to include all of the novels. Especially with the DS9 relaunch, the novels are all we have left of that era after Nemesis.
One example... I wholeheartedly approve of his placement of TOS/TAS/TMP based on data points from the episodes and novels, rather than Okuda's approach of arbitrarily taking the episode airdates for TOS and adding three hundred years.
I agree that other things in there still need work, like his slavish acceptance of every single offering from every single fandom shipwright of the 70s and 80s, but even with the flaws that are still in there, it's head-and-shoulders above Okuda's conjecture- and disclaimer-filled Chronology.
And lest y'all think I'm an Okuda-basher myself, don't worry... I love what he's done on the shows, and am immensely grateful for the artistic talent with which he's filled everything from Star Trek IV on. I just want people to realize that, as with Gene himeself, his comments are not -- and should not be considered -- the Way Things Are.
The most painful thing to watch with Gene's ongoing involvement with Star Trek was his unwillingness to admit his creation had outgrown him. From TMP on, he fought what Trek was growing into, rather than working with the way things were taking shape. And Mike's reverence for Gene led him to blindly accept certain dictates Gene made during pre- and early production of TNG -- about what's canon and what isn't, about how starships should be designed... Stuff that Mike had no idea grew out of Gene's personal relationships with various writers over the years, and wasn't a carefully-reasoned-out scientific law from the Great Bird.
Mike unhesitatingly adopted Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design, not knowing that Gene only came up with them to discredit the work of Franz Joseph, with whom Gene had had a business-related falling-out.
Mike readily accepted that the refit Enterprise was still a Constitution-class vessel, in order to quash the FASA and fandom Enterprise-class legacy -- which, ironically, had been gleaned from the production staff of the first two Trek films. Mike turned out to be invalidating the work of his predacessors.
Nor did anyone working on the ongoing development of Trek ever think of consulting the people who first created Trek for insights into what they intended, apart from Gene and Justman. To this day, I wonder what might have happened if Starfleet organizational designers -- from Franz Joseph to Mike Okuda -- had bothered to talk to Matt Jeffries before concocting their systems out of thin air...
--Jonah
P.S. Yes, MMoM, that does mean I believe in the Enterprise class.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Three cheers for Jonah!
Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Just realized how seriously I hijacked this thread. Sorry 'bout that.
So serifs aside, what're the opinions about how thick the gold border is the TOS hull letting?
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm sorry, Monsieur Rapp, but my opinion of James Dixon is about as low as CaptainMike's
Believe me, I am FULLY aware of the flaws in Mike Okuda's Chronology, but the fact is that it's the one that is utilized by TPTB. As much as a line about "300 years" in "Miri" (TOS) might indicate a 2260 date for the ep, we have a spoken reference to the exact date of the end of Kirk's five-year mission (2273) in "Q2" (VGR). Okuda made an elephantine snafu in not including TAS in the Chronolgy, and in rounding off dates too much, and in picking arbitrary dates for events that there was no real way to determine the timeframe of, but it's still a reasonably good reference. It's obvious that it needs to be updated and amended as things are pinned down by later shows, but as a loose guide it's okay. Even though not great, its still far better (read as "far more relevant") than Dixon's leviathan jumble of obscure fandom gobbledygook pulled out of hundreds of fanboy asses over the years.
-MMoM Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW, Mim, Q2 established 2270 for the end of the FYM, not '73
oh, and for shame on Okuda for going along with what Roddenberry told him to do. newsflash: it was his job to do so. it was his job to invalidate the (minor, inconsequential) work of his predecessors. it was what TPTB wanted. and back then, we even like TPTB: it was Roddenberry.
and nobody has to go along with Okuda's chronology, we only have to go along with the parts that were actually included in episodes.. for example, the only dating standards we have for TOS is that the FYM ended in 2270 (as per Q2).. and that Trouble with Tribbles was 105 years before Trials & Tribbleations.. the rest is up in the air, and i do prefer to disregard Okuda's speculation..
my version of the five year mission always seems to figure it coming in at about 5 years and 6 months (from mid 2264 until early 2270), and i don't consider Dehner's line about 'years together' to indicate that WNMHGB was long after Kirk took command.. this leaves plenty of room for TAS and the later novels/comics.
these are the kind of things where Okuda deliberately states that his own interpretation is conjecture, because there are more solutions possible. and i feel my solution works, and isnt about to be invalidated. yay!
Dixon, howver, cannot leave anything up in the air, when there is a lack of data, he formulates his own, and it rarely makes much sense to me. when two ships have the same registry, he comes up with bizarre renaming schemes. wierd.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Regarding WNMHGB, Dehner was speaking of the time spent by Spock and Mitchell on the Enterprise. She doesn't specify the length of time Mitchell served on Kirk's first command.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
In addition to Okuda, Dixon and personal preferences (plus outdated stuff like the SFC), there's another player in town now. A team that includes Alex Rosenzweig and some PsiPhi.org activists has formulated a timeline for the official Trek novels: it's printed on the back of at least the softcover "Gateways: What Lay Beyond" (a surprisingly stupid book with a few highlights, but at least it wasn't expensive).
The novel timeline builds on Okuda's chronology but pays attention to the recent developments (like "Q2") and the problems of TOS dating. There are brief notes on the most glaring internal dating errors presented by the novels themselves, and on what the team took at face value and what they dropped, which is rather helpful. The team has the slightly odd practice of giving "corrected", speculative stardates to books that give obviously incompatible ones (a bit like our unsolicited re-registering and re-naming of the "Zuhkov"), but otherwise the work seems free of silly bias.
Like Dixon's work, this one includes ALL the novels. Not all the comics or the RPGs, though, which is a relief - but WildStorm's more recent Trek "graphic novels" ARE included there. IMHO, fittingly so, because they are chronologically quite palatable. Heck, "Double Time" even was specifically created in order to correct a chronology mistake!
All in all, I think the novel business nowadays is a lot more internally and "inter-bookly" consistent than it used to be - and often better so than the actual episodes. All hail Ordover, I guess... Or DeCandido, who loves this sort of detail work. Or Peter David, who (as mentioned) creates entire storylines to set right continuity mistakes.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Could you please scan that timeline? I'd like to see it. And I'm curious in which year they put Duane's books about the Romulans and how they explained all the inconsistencies.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'll do it on Monday! (I'll type it in, not scan it - it's divided on a lot of small softcover pages, after all.)
The timeline basically only gives the year (and SD and/or month, when applicable) when the book is supposed to take place, and on smaller font the years when the flashbacks or flash-forwards within the novel take place. It also includes the aired episodes and movies as reference points. It does NOT provide any sort of cross-referencing of novel events. Which is IMHO a good thing. That way lies madness - or Dixon, if one wants to distinguish.
The Duane stuff is divided so that "The Wounded Sky" and "My Enemy, My Ally" are somewhere in the final weeks of the five-year mission (although IMHO they could take place even after TMP). "The Romulan Way" and the two newer books follow in the mid-to-late 2270s, based on internal references to how much time has passed since the first two books. The reader is supposed to ignore any incompatible references to Kirk's or others' rank (and to Sternbach's timeline on the Constellation class - Duane introduces it in the seventies already).
Duane's original intention that much of this stuff take place before Kirk gets flag rank is completely forgotten, since it would mean placing TMP in the VERY late 2270s or even the early 2280s. Which isn't all that bad an idea IMHO, but requires a lot of work, and is incompatible with the preponderance of other novels.
...All in all, it seems that Duane's disclaimer about the noncanonicity of her Rihannsu books is well deserved, when not even this fine team can figure out a consistent place for the books!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: I didn't realize the Excelsior's symbol was tilted upwards until a few days ago when I was watching Trek III on DVD and used the 15x zoom to see the Excelsior start up as Enterprise was backing out of spacedock.
Ooohh - can you screen grab that at all - but the little cargo ship in space dock when the Enterprise arrives!! Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Jonah: I mostly agree. The problem is not so much in what he did, because Roddenberry did want to make TNG into a new show (let's face it, the Star Trek shows are technically *different* shows *based* on Star Trek).
The problem as I see it is that TNG writers' guides (which is what the Chronology and the TNGTM originally were) were being sold as *the* interpretation of Star Trek. They sell because of the fans who believe that the author's/any producer's interpretation is the best or the only valid one, but also because of the fans who believe that Trek history is constantly being revised and changed depending on who's in charge, meaning that the new producer overrides the old one.
Any serious literary critic would ROTFLHAO at such a simplistic view of things, which appeals only to fans who choose to disagree only "within the family", i.e. never say anything that might offend the producers or their vision too much. But since when have literary critics and authors disagreed "within the family"?
Okuda's books are simply his own interpretation which is a part of the overall TNG era point of view. There's also Voyager's point-of-view, DS9's point-of-view, and the movies' point-of-view -- simply because every show has a different showrunner. In Hollywood, the role of this particular executive producer is to set the tone for a series, and the fact that Berman is another exec shouldn't obscure the fact that the reason two producers exist is to make every series different-yet-same -- neither a reimagining, nor a consistent universe in the B5 or Star Wars style.
In fact, the definition of canon should probably be relativized with respect to each show. The DS9 canon, in that order, seems to be DS9, TNG, TOS, movies.... Enterprise canon, on the other hand, might be Enterprise, Voyager, TNG, TOS...The Meyer-canon seems to be the Meyer movies, followed by TMP, TOS, and TNG. The TOS canon might be TOS, TAS, the Meyer movies, TMP, DS9, TNG.
If books were written consistent with the way the shows are produced, there would be something for fans of every series. Nowadays, we merely have an overarching Okuda interpretation of Star Trek that works well within the TNG era, but that sometimes threatens to water down the works of other producers.
So, Dixon has the right idea recognizing that Okuda's interpretation is simply Okuda's interpretation, but then again he's not trying to make Star Trek into a consistent universe -- to him, it's a mythology with inconsistent and overlapping points of view that one may attempt to rationalize, but to him that's not strictly necessary. In places that he does attempt a rationalization, he gives priority to sources that came first and sources closely based on these (=tech fandom), followed by everything else because he sees the new shows as a corruption/reimagining of the original myth he attempts to trace using whatever source he can find.
It's quite interesting; however, as I've argued before, it's not what Star Trek has become, as defined by the official canon order and the sheer number of episodes that override the books from the POV of any showrunner and most viewers.
Boris
[ December 13, 2002, 07:10: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: [QUOTE]Ooohh - can you screen grab that at all - but the little cargo ship in space dock when the Enterprise arrives!!
Sorry. I can screen grab from VHS but I have a standalone DVD Player and don't have the means of hooking it to the computer. Maybe when I can find a job and buy a new computer and get a DVD-ROM.....
[ December 13, 2002, 07:45: Message edited by: SoundEffect ]
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: Originally posted by Timo:
Duane's original intention that much of this stuff take place before Kirk gets flag rank is completely forgotten, since it would mean placing TMP in the VERY late 2270s or even the early 2280s.
That's actually not all that difficult to set up. Given Decker's line in TMP about Voyager 6 being "launched more than 300 years ago", that gives an absolute minimum date for TMP of 6 September 2277 (300 years and one day after the launch of Voyager 1, which was the second one launched).
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Sorry. I can screen grab from VHS but I have a standalone DVD Player and don't have the means of hooking it to the computer. Maybe when I can find a job and buy a new computer and get a DVD-ROM.....
Er.... If you can capture from a VCR, then you can capture from the DVD player. Just hook the VCR up to the capture card, and connect the DVD player to the video in port on the VCR. Not that hard, really.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: [QUOTE]the little cargo ship in space dock when the Enterprise arrives
By that do you mean the little thing on the shelf? If so, zooming in doesn't help. You can't see that any clearer.
I'll start a list of things to capture. I'm not unhooking both DVD and VCR systems in two different rooms and switching everything for 1 screen cap. I'll collect enough shots that it's worth setting things up.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
