posted
The topic is clear as it is posed in the subject line. It started as a result of the mention of the single-nacelle destroyer Saladin and scout Hermes classes being canon. However, as these are FJ tech manual ships that are only seen briefly as a display in TWOK and TSFS, how are we to interpret their canonity?
We never see a model, either CGI or physical, for either of these ships. They never showed up in the TOS, or TNG, or any Trek film as a set, CGI miniature, or ship depicted in action, or displayed as anything other than a drawing.
How official are they??
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
When it was written, it most certainly was official. FJ consulted Roddenberry on it, and they apparently had frequent discussions on it.
That is why a lot of material from FJ's work is used in the first three movies. His deckplans are seen very frequently (and close-up) in those movies, and of course there are the diagrams in TWOK and the names in the Epsilon IX chatter.
It was only *later* that Roddenberry denounced the TM as being false, and came with his nacelle-rules. This is presumably also the time the fixation with 'canon' began.
So, it boils down to this: - It was official at least during production of the first three movies. - Roddenberry got pissed off, and devised his rules. - Subsequent Trek didn't consider it 'canon' anymore, and as such much of the info seems out of place.
Also keep in mind that during the wrinting of the book, there was *only* TOS, with only a very vague idea of a new movie, and certainly nothing like the Next Generation. So FJ was relatively free to do what he wanted with unseen ships.
As for the current situation, TPTB obviously will never use anything of this book again. And the question you asked is really one without any good answer. It's up to you. You can ignore the monitors, ignore the obvious link with the book, or take the whole book as real.
The pictures of those particular ships that showed up on the displays are canon, but it doesn't necessarily mean the ships exist.
Also, they're the sort of canon that doesn't really matter in terms of the show, because the people making the show aren't going to remember they were there, or do anything with them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The following portions of FJ's work (or rather the data points contained therein) are canonical, by virtue of having been included on screen as computer displays, set decoration, comm chatter, etc, in the first four Star Trek films:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
The scouts U.S.S. Columbia NCC-621 and U.S.S. Revere NCC-595, and the dreadnought U.S.S. Entente NCC-2120 were mentioned in the comm chatter around Epsilon IX. These ships were all taken directly from the manual's shiplsits. The book gives classes (Cygnus, Hermes, and Federation, respectively) for them, but these were not mentioned in the film.
Several portions of the U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700 deckplans from FJ's related work Star Trek Blueprints, including the cutaway were seen on computer displays when V'Ger was running through the ship's databases.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
The pages showing diagrams and specifications for the Hermes-class scout, Saladin-class destroyer, and Ptolemy-class transport/tug were seen as computer displays during the Kobayashi Maru simulation.
The seals for the five founding members of the Federation according to Joseph (Earth, 40 Eridani, 61 Cygni, Epsilon Indii, and Alpha Centauri) were seen to adorn the interior of the travel pod.
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
The same displays from the simulator in TWOK are seen again on the real Enterprise bridge, along with another showing the Ptolemy in towing configuration.
A portion of the manual page showing diagrams and specifications for the Constitution-class heavy cruiser, along with more portions from the Blueprints, are seen on Chekov's security alert screens. (Unfortunately, this was a poor production choice, as they were obviously intended to represent the refit Enterprise rather than the prototype Constitution.) The exterior plans are later seen again in "Datalore" (TNG).
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Joseph's seal of the Federation is seen on the exterior of the UFP council chambers.
Have I forgotten anything?
Now, aside from the above, nothing from the book is canonical. Moreover, as Irishman has mentioned in another thread, there are a number of elements (such as the location of the Fleet headquarters, et. al.) that have even been contradicted or precluded byt what we've seen onscreen in the intervening years. Thus, the manual is unreliable as a reference source for "in-universe" Trek beyond the above exceptions.
However, in my shiplist, I do include a small few data points from the lists in the manual (specifically marked as such) that weren't ever actually given on screen. Namely, the classes of all three ships from TMP and the registries of the class ships for the Columbia and Entente. I do this merely for completeness, and because I know that Andrew Probert (who generated the comm chatter) was referring directly to the manual, and therefore these points may be taken for granted.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I do hate to do this, but I'm going to have to point out that "seen on a computer/heard as background comm chatter" are about the lowest form of "canon" that you can get, and can easily be ignored (and probably will be) by any current writer. I expect that the "five founding members of the Federation" thing will be contradicted before Enterprise finishes, for one.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You are, of course, correct in that no one besides us is likely to pay any attention to such backrgound details. However, to provide some context, this thread arose over the question of whether there was any precedent for TOS era ships with one nacelle, in a recent Artwork, Designs, and Creativity thread. And I see no reason to disregard the FJ ships in such a discussion, unless it is to further the ridiculous assertion that starships can have only even numbers of nacelles. I might also mention that if we disregarded computer displays, it would eliminate half of the ship registry and class data points in our shiplists...
As to who the founding members of the Federation are, FJ never specified anything about the races that inhabited the planets he postulated. Only later did they come to be associated with the Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians, and human colonists of Alpha Centauri. So there's no real reason why ENT would prove contradictory unless it specifically mentions a different star location. But in any case, that's a separate issue from starship design, and FJ's seals in the film are far less visible than the computer displays.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess my whole problem with the 1-nacelle or 2-nacelle or 3-nacelle or more thing is this:
How does a fan decide how many nacelles to use when designing a Trek-inspired ship? It's not just a matter of the mass of the ship, because if that were so, then the U.S.S. Grissom should have had only 1 nacelle, as it's smaller than the Saladin or Hermes.
I'm sure someone can help rationalize this FJ-created mess.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: How does a fan decide how many nacelles to use when designing a Trek-inspired ship?
It's all up to the designer. A single-nacelled ship is usually one that fills a role that calls for something small and quick, with a minimum of materials. A dual-nacelled ship is the norm, with the right balance between size, speed, and materials. A tri-nacelled ship is usually a ship that is based on a cruiser-type ship that's been beefed up and needs more power, speed, what-have-you.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps three nacelles are used on ships where the mission takes the ship through unstable spatial regions and the extra source of warp field generation is necessary for efficient travel?
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
quote: How does a fan decide how many nacelles to use when designing a Trek-inspired ship? It's not just a matter of the mass of the ship, because if that were so, then the U.S.S. Grissom should have had only 1 nacelle, as it's smaller than the Saladin or Hermes.
Likie anything else, based on (a) their understanding of how warp drive works, and (b) what appeals to their aesthetic sense. How much weight is given to each will vary from person to person.
For my part, I've recently started my fleet list over from scratch, making some basic assumptions about how starships work and designing ships in light of those assumptions.
Scouts, for instance, have a single nacelle because the less-powerful subspace field makes them harder to spot on long-range sensors. Toward the end of the 23rd century, starship-class scouts will be discontinued in favour of even smaller, stealthier Class II ships.
Destroyers, on the other hand, have two nacelles, placed in the same "plane" as the primary hull, and spaced widely. This gives them both maneuverability and a minimal target aspect. And dreadnoughts have three nacelles because of their mass--three nacelles of power x being more efficient than one of power 3x--and for redundancy.
It's up to you what you want to make of the Star Trek universe. You can limit yourself to what's "official" and "canon" if you want, in which case you only need to concern yourself with documentary evidence. Personally, I prefer to "cherry-pick" what I like and ignore the rest. I rather doubt the Paramount Goon Squad is going to bust down my door and drag me away because my conceptualisation of Star Trek doesn't have the Michael Okuda Seal Of Approval.
Marian
PS: I must disagree with whoever said that the founding systems weren't yet associated with specific TOS races, at least with respect to 40 Eridani. The planetary flag is consistant with the "look" of Vulcan stuff from TOS. And I'm sure we'd all agree that the "Alpha Centauri Concordium of Planets" refers to Alpha Centauri. Whether it's inhabited by a native humanoid race or Earth colonists is the real question. I favour the latter, if only because Crisis On Centaurus was one of my favourite early Star Trek novels.
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Personally, I prefer to "cherry-pick" what I like and ignore the rest. I rather doubt the Paramount Goon Squad is going to bust down my door and drag me away because my conceptualisation of Star Trek doesn't have the Michael Okuda Seal Of Approval.
You haven't read the Patriot Act very closely have you?
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
