Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
T-Negative #27 (Yes, I *found* it!)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phoenix: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Shik: [qb]Actually, quite often. When the [i]Ticonderoga[/i]-class CGs & the [i]Arleigh Burke[/i]-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 [i]Seawolf[/i]-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 [i]Nimitz[/i]class carrier is the CVNX project. [i]Los Angeles[/i]-class subs are still call 688 & 688I-class boats; even [i]Sturgeon[/i]s were 637-class boats. And to add another wrench...possible reuse of class names? RL ref point: with the launch of USS [i]Virginia[/i] SSN-774, the USN will have started its 3rd "[i]Virginia[/i]-class" of ships. [/qb][/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. And it would seem that Starfleet is not adverse to reusing Class names - otherwise the Voyager crew would have been surprised at the Dauntless NX-01-A being the first of its class (like the Dauntless NX-01 presumably was). [QUOTE]Originally posted by Futurama Guy: [qb] 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.[/qb][/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? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Futurama Guy: [qb]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.[/qb][/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. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Futurama Guy: [qb]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. <u>This is a cold hard fact</u>. Never before this was it confirmed visibally ON SCREEN to be anything more or less.[/qb][/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. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Futurama Guy: [qb]There never was a "USS Starship", besides being <u>completely redundant</u>, 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 [i]Enterprise[/i]"...I certainly cannot believe that they went around hailing folks saying "this is the Federation Starship [i]Starship[/i]" [/qb][/QUOTE]Well, someone went around saying "This is the Federation Starship Federation", didn't they? There is always the possibility it was never made spaceworthy and sits in a museum somewhere. Or they could have said "This is the Federation Vessel Starship". And stating your personal opinion as undenialable fact is just a tad arrogant, wouldn't you say? I don't demand anyone agree with me; in fact I don't even expect it. After all, this is a highly speculative theory based on incomplete and often contradictory facts. However, I do expect not to be treated like I am a complete idiot by people like you. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, but whenever I try to discuss something you turn up, flame me, and insult everything I say. Fine, you have opinions, but I have them too, so try not to be so rude about everything. Edit: Just to throw yet another spanner in the works, re Scout Class, there were two Royal Navy ships, a turn-of-the-century cruiser and a WW2 destroyer, called HMS Scout. [/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