Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Starfleet refits and registries
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matrix: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by: Boris [b]How about an all-inclusive deal (with licensed sources only):[/b] [b]1) In the TOS era, the Jefferies/Joseph system was used for hull numbers. Here, the 17th "major design of the Federation" was not a class, but rather one of several prefices for the type Heavy Cruiser. Specific classes would have their own ranges.[/b] [b]2) Only twelve ships of various heavy cruiser classes would be outfitted for exploration during TOS. The Constellation and the Republic would've been older heavy cruisers refitted into Constitution-class, as Joseph's tech manual indicates. It just happened that Constitution-class specs ended up being the best for this purpose.[/b] [b]3) Later on, Starfleet completely switched to something like the pennant number system, where numbers are basically linear but can change based on mission requirements and are not assigned at construction time. Most of the original Constitutions received different numbers, though some retained them. The reality is that nobody could care less whether or not the final numbers were in a sort of a strict system because any computer can hold a database of 70000+ numbers quite easily and decode the necessary information.[/b][/QUOTE]I really don't like #1 because going by that then we can assume that all ships down even the 9XX class was a Connie look alike (well going by the age, the Connie would be the look alike). But we most of us agree that the Enterprise is the second Connie built. I like #2 for the reason, that they could be fitted and called a different type of ship but still retain their class distinction. For instance, having a Heavy Cruiser type Connie and a Long Range Explorer Connie. In #3, relies on that a computer can hold 70,000+ ships and their specifications. Hell, my shit 4 year old computer can do that now. (If I delete everything). And if TOS is supposed to be more advanced that our computer they should be able to handle 70,000+ ships easily. But I get where you're going though, but I still don't agree. [QUOTE]Originally posted by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim. [b]Can someone specify these alleged "notable differences" between the Constellation and Ent? I keep hearing this, but isn't it really just something like the bridge is slightly mis-shapen, etc? It certainly was never noticeable to me...[/b][/QUOTE]Its an AMT model, and it has small differences such as a different shaped bridge mount and so on. Just as an addition: It is generally well known that no ship looks alike, even during construction. If we ignore the small minute details such as welding or placements of structural memebers which can be accounted for human or alien error. Ships under construction are always subject to change under admiral or captain's wishes. Eventually it becomes more apparent when the ship is docked for a refit. Where one ship is docked one year earlier, one equipment would be different from the other. It even states somewhere in the TNG TM, about this. So its not impossible for the Constellation to be different from the Enterprise. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3