After a delay of several years due to lack of adequate reference materials, I've finally begun work on a drafting project I've long wanted to do. Essentially, it's a reworking of the TMP design era under the following guidelines:
1) The Enterprise was refit to the Phase II design standards after the end of TOS.
2) Technology would gradually develop over the next few years, with the full TMP style making its debut simultaneously with the Excelsior and the Constellation.
3) The fleet numbering system would conform to some of Matt Jefferies notes, in that the Enerprise's registry denotes her being the first production model of the 17th cruiser design. Following her first refit, her registry would be NCC-1701-A (strictly speaking, this should have happened to the second pilot version, but we're stuck with the series registry of 1701).
This last part leads me to this; since the E's registry describes her place in the cruiser production run, it seems to me that other types of starship would not have the NCC prefix. I've got some tentative ideas, but I'd really appreciate some comments and suggestions from you folks. My current ideas are as follows:
As of now, my idea for an experimental ship would be an X in the first position for an experimental design, i.e. XCC-2900 for a new cruiser. I did this mostly to avoid confusion if, say, you had a registry of NSX; there would be no way to tell if it was a carrier or a scout.
As I said, any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Why are you stuck with the series registry of NCC-1701 and not the movie registry of NCC-1701?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Interesting, and different. I like the different prefixes. Maybe you can finally resolve the Grissom's registry.
I suppose--assuming you want to include them--that you could use NDN for dreadnoughts.
Marian
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The point of this exercise is to draw a set of ships from an alternate timeline, if you like. One where Trek more or less followed the Phase II path rather than the one we know. Additionally, when I first saw Jefferies' Enterprise design sketch with the notes about numbering (page 68 of the Star Trek Sketchbook), I thought it would be fun to use it on the project. After all, they brought him in to update his original design for Phase II; why not follow his registry number ideas as well?
For example, one image that stuck in my mind was the shot from TWOK where Khan first opens fire on the Enterprise. Only in this case, it's the Phase II E, and Reliant is the original Miranda design from ST: The Magazine (the one with the engines above the hull), reverse engineered to Phase II standards.
Partly this whole idea comes from a small sense of dissatisfaction with the technology jump from TOS to TMP. Everything changed; it felt like going from biplanes to ramjets in one step. From what little we saw of Federation shore facilities in TOS, there was no inkling of the radical changes that (in series terms) was only a couple of years away. I wanted to try to develop a scenario where the technology improved a bit more gradually.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Possibly, Marian, but I more or less thought to keep them in the cruiser group. Long ago I developed a tentative description for a cruiser as being "a starship with two or more hull modules with a total mass of at least 160,000 tons." The other option for the dreadnoughts might be NPC, derived from SotSF's Patrol Combatants designation for her whole group. However, every time I think of that one, I can't help hearing "U.S.S. Federation, Non Player Character 2100-A."
As for our old friend the Grissom, from her exterior lines she's much closer to the Excelsior than anything else. If, for example, a Phase II refit of the Hermes were to bear the registry NSS-1500-A, I would put the Oberths as something like NSS-2300 or so (if not higher).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I tried to create my own registry prefix system myself based off the Navy's. For example, a DD means Destroyer, add a G and it's a Guided-Missile Destroyer. A CG is a Guided-Missile Cruiser, add an N (CGN) and it's a Nuclear Guided-Missile Cruiser. Same if you add a N to DDG turning it into a DDGN.
1st letter N=Federation starship (both Starfleet and civilian)
2nd letter C=Conventional starship (ie Warp power) S=Quantum Slipstream capable (developed after technology brought back by Voyager)
3rd letter F=Frigate (New Orleans small type ships) D=Destroyer (Defiant, Prometheus) E=Explorer (Galaxy, Nebula, Sovereign) S=Scout (Intrepid, Nova) C=Cruiser (Akira, Centaur) X=Experimental R=Research (Raven, Oberth) T=Transport (troops, colony)
For example, a slipstream capable Defiant-class vessel would be NSD-75xxx.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Does the mean the class prototype would be NCX or NSX?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
It would depend on it's propulsion. The C and S serve the same function as an N on Navy ships. If the class prototype uses slipstream then yes, NSX. If conventional warp drive, NCX. I wouldn't imagine that Starfleet would install slipstream drives on all ships of every kind. Just frontline ships.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Isn't the letter code for carriers 'V', or is that just something made up by SFB? And under your scheme Hobbes how would you do dreadnoughts or battleships - whatever you want to call them.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
V is the designation for fixed wing carriers, yes. But SC is used for Trek Shuttle Carriers, like the Ariel class. Not sure where the design itself originates from but the abbreviation is used in SotSF.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Well I was just giving examples. I didn't think every possible catagory imaginable.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Congradulations, Hobbes, on your successful thread hijacking.
Just how different is the Phase II stuff from the final film versions? I thought there were only a few minor detail variations, like the rounded bridge module that ended up getting used on the Bozeman.
Marian
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Internally things were very different. The uniforms in phase 2 were going to be the same as those used in TOS, for example.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Congradulations, Hobbes, on your successful thread hijacking.
It's what I do. I don't post often so I steal what ever threads I can.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Actually, the Phase II design was a lot different from the TMP one. The saucer dimensions and shape were like TOS, etc. The nacelles were differently shaped. It was Andy Probert who reworked the ship's proportions at ASTRA under Richard Taylor, who designed the "art deco" nacelles.
Phase II miniature under construction. Notice the TOS era impulse deck, less curvy secondary hull than TMP model, and plumper/simpler nacelle designs. Also notice a mistake: there's an 'intercooler" on the port side of each nacelle, so one is inboard and one is outboard. Ooops!
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Heh, so that's where the design in Ships of the Star Fleet comes from. Cool.
Marian
Posted by Father Robert Lyons, SST (Member # 1372) on :
I find this thread interesting...
Me and a friend are working on a technical fanon project focused around Star Trek Phase II.
I shall continue to follow this thread with interest.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)