posted
Bernd means that the LUG ships are not canon, and thus are not part of "real" Trek. Of course, fan designs, even if they're more logical, are in the same category.
I also detest kitbash-style ships that use existing parts. In the thread about favorite ships, most people have selected the designs that were all-new at their introduction (Akira, Excelsior). The exceptions that come to mind are the Nebula and Miranda, but even those get old after a while.
There's nothing wrong with the Antares and Hermes being of the same class. We still have the Miranda and Excelsior, after all. Also, in the epsiode, they said that some of the ships used in the armada were old ones, recently refitted.
Also, someone recently discovered (in the TNO forums) that we did in fact see the Deneva-class Arcos in "Legacies" (TNG). Unfortunately I don't have that episode on tape.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Blitzwing: "If I want to know what's on your mind, I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself!"
posted
"Bernd means that the LUG ships are not canon, and thus are not part of "real" Trek."
As I said, LUG have a disclaimer about canon in every book.
These designs will be seen by more people than any other non-canon design for those classes. That makes them 'first choice' for me.
"There's nothing wrong with the Antares and Hermes being of the same class. We still have the Miranda and Excelsior, after all. Also, in the epsiode, they said that some of the ships used in the armada were old ones, recently refitted."
There's a lot wrong with it. The Antares was a supply ship not a front line vessel in the 2260s. By the 2360s it would be extremely stupid to take it into a potential war zone. The Excelsior and Constellation also used in that blockade are at least 25 years younger. A lot of people have problems with the Miranda being used as a combat vessel in TNG/DS9, but at least the Miranda was a front line vessel in the 23rd century not a supply ship.
posted
"Also, someone recently discovered (in the TNO forums) that we did in fact see the Deneva-class Arcos in "Legacies" (TNG). Unfortunately I don't have that episode on tape."
When I see a screen shot I'll make a longer comment.
Based on the discussion on that forum the Deneva might be a Merchentman/Monarch class from STIII, possibly with Fed style nacelles added. Cool, that would free up the LUG design for another class.
LUG raises the interesting idea that the same class may have different names in Starfleet and civilian serevice. It says that the civil version of the Deneva is the Ceres class. How many names can one class have? ;-)
posted
Well, that wouldn't make sense, unless the first Starfleet-built ship of that type were the Deneva, and the first civilian one were the Ceres...
BTW, remind me what LUG stands for? I used to know this...
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Blitzwing: "If I want to know what's on your mind, I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself!"
[This message was edited by The Shadow on March 22, 1999.]
posted
It is possible that the Niagara Class starship was first commissioned in the 2240's. The USS Brattain, registry NCC-21166, was commissioned in 2345. (Commission stardate of USS Brattain-22519.50 (2345); Stardate of Battle of Khitomer-23859.70 (2346)) This would indicate that Starfleet was still launching ships that had registries of NCC-2xxxx in the 2340's. And, further, the nacelles of the Niagara Class indicate that this class is contemporary with the Nebula and Galaxy. Since the USS Galaxy is said to have been commissioned in 2357, the USS Niagara could have been commissioned sometime between 2345 and 2357. Was this class of ship a response to the war with the Cardassians? We know from the Dominion War that Starfleet is combining parts from different starships so as to strenghten the fleet. Could this also explain why so many ships are the combination of parts from different ship classes?
IP: Logged
posted
What makes you think that civilians follow the Starfleet practice of naming a class after the first ship in that class? Military and Civilian versions of the same aircraft have different names.
It's more than possible that 'xfdhgfj starship manufacturing' produced a ship and marketed it under the name Ceres (there may or may not have been a SS Ceres). Starfleet purchased a whole bunch of them and called the first one USS Deneva, hence Starfleet calls them Deneva class. 'xfdhgfj' then sold the design to 'uiklj stellar engineering' who decided to market it under the name Monarch. Starfleet decommissioned some of her ships and sold them to 'uythy shipping' who sold them on under the name Merchantman.
Whilst Stardate 22519.50 is indeed 14:49:12 GMT Monday, 9th July 2345, I don't think that that date fits the registry NCC-21166 very well. The dates and registries of the minor ships have never made much sense. Look at the USS Tsiolkovsky for an extreme example: NCC-35911 but apparantly commisioned in 2363!
posted
Identity Crisis: There are thousands of conjectural designs in the web, and I think I have seen at least half a dozen for each of the ship classes in question, some of them carefully drawn, some of them extremely bizarre and inconsistent cut-and-paste designs. The LUG ships belong to the category of non-canon ships too. You're right that the LUG ships will get more attention, after all they're printed in a book. However, if I don't like the designs, because they're inconsistent or just ugly, there's no reason to "believe" they "really" exist. In this respect theLUG ships can't be my first choice. I have a ship list similar to yours, and I would not adopt any non-canon design (Let's talk about the Niagara later, Frank).
I only suggested some possible designs for the ships for which definitely no official model exists. What I meant by "use them" was taking them as a kind of place-holder. This could have been a misunderstanding since you were talking about the RPG. My idea is that good designs instead of cut-and-paste graphics and the ugly (sorry) LUG designs could be established among fans, and maybe this *expert* forum is the right place to start such an effort. The descriptions are not meant to be taken literally, they just should give an impression on how the ships could look like. After all, it was an idea to start a discussion. I didn't mean to spoil your fun with the RPG, and I agree that good specs are more important in this case.
BTW: I'm sure there are a lot of people who have a talent to conceive specs and draw the ships as well.
Lindsly: I agree that there are a lot of signs the registries are not necessarily chronological. Still, there must be some flaw in the launch dates, I can't judge it right now.
Identity Crisis: I agree that Starfleet and civilian ships of the same type may have different class designations, or the same class name may be used for different designs. The latter must apply to the Antares class, since I can't believe Starfleet uses rusty, dirty and slow ships like the civilian Antares class that was featured several times in TNG (Batris, Bajoran non-warp transport, ship to rendez-vous with the Warbird in "Face of the Enemy"). The Starfleet Antares class has to be more powerful, whether it is a supply vessel or not. Basically, I have no objection against the idea the Starfleet Antares class is indeed the same class as the Charlie X Antares. Maybe the ships have been significantly upgraded.
Frank: I don't really care about civilian ship designations, because we know nothing about a naming system, if there's one at all. So anything could be possible. We should also take into account that some ship designs are used by several alien civilizations. It is natural that every race would use names of their own, while the Starfleet designation would always be Antares or Deneva, and would be translated as such by the universal translators in our TV sets.
posted
So when you said that "we are not supposed to use any of them" what you actually meant was "I am not going to include them in my own personal list"?
posted
Identity Crisis: The registry of the USS Tsiolkovsky is NCC-53911. The dedication plague confirms this fact. BTW, the modelers didn't change the registry on the studio model used in the episode "The Naked Now". Registry is NCC-638-the registry of the USS Grissom. Launch Dates (Note: a. Constitution Class-I fall into the camp that believes there were two Constitutions. b. If there are more than two ships launched in a specific year, I do the list by sorting alphabetical, not chronologically. c. I believe that there could be two USS Cochranes-NCC-6000 ("The Drumhead") and NCC-59318 ("Emissary"))-
2224 USS Constitution (NCC-9xx) 2245 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) 2284 USS Excelsior (NX-2000) 2285 USS Hathaway (NCC-2593) 2286 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) 2293 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) 2337 USS Hokkaido 2345 USS Brattain (NCC-21166) 2350 USS Pegasus (NCC-53847) 2357 USS Galaxy (NX-70637) 2363 USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) USS Phoenix (NCC-65420) USS Tsiolkovsky (NCC-53911) 2366 USS Bradbury (NX-72307) 2367 USS Sutherland (NCC-72015) 2368 USS Danube (NCC-72003) 2369 USS Cochrane (NCC-59318) USS Ganges (NCC-72454) USS Mekong (NCC-72917) USS Orinoco (NCC-72905) USS Rio Grande (NCC-72452) USS Yangtze Kiang (NCC-72453) 2370 USS Defiant (NX-74205) 2371 USS Intrepid USS Lexington (NCC-61832) USS Rubicon (NCC-72936) USS Voyager (NCC-74656) 2372 USS Valiant (NCC-74210) USS Yukon (NCC-74602) 2373 USS Centaur USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) USS Volga (NCC-73196) 2374 USS Prometheus (NX-59650) USS Shenandoah (NCC-73024) 2375 (NCC-75227)
I believe that the naming of registries is as follows- 2161 to 2300 3 digit numbers 2210 to 2310 4 digit numbers 2310 to present 5 digit numbers 2310's 1xxxx 2320's 1xxxx (USS Ajax-NCC 11574-2327) 2xxxx 3xxxx 4xxxx 2330's 2xxxx 3xxxx 4xxxx (USS Maryland-NCC-45109, USS Aries-NCC 45167, USS Hornet-NCC 45231 all built before 2337) 2340's 2xxxx (USS Brattain-NCC 21166) 3xxxx 4xxxx 5xxxx 2350's 5xxxx (USS Pegasus-NCC 53847) 6xxxx 7xxxx (USS Galaxy-NX 70637) 2360's 5xxxx (USS Tsiolkovsky-NCC 53911) 6xxxx (USS Phoenix-NCC 65420) 7xxxx (USS Bradbury-NX 72307) 2370's 5xxxx (USS Prometheus-NX 59650) 6xxxx (USS Lexington-NCC 61832) 7xxxx (USS Defiant-NX 74205) 2380's (Proj.) 6xxxx 7xxxx 8xxxx 2390's (Proj.) 7xxxx 8xxxx 9xxxx
posted
All I know is that if BarnesandNoble.com doesn't ship me the Price of Freedom (which I ordered and which was available in FEBRUARY) really damn soon, there's going to be Hell to pay.
posted
BTW Construction Period By decade First decade of production (FDP) Limited production run (LPR) (Translation: This class has only one range for registries. EX. USS Bradbury) 1. Akira Class FDP: 2360's 2. Ambassador Class FDP: 2310's 3. Andromeda Class FDP: 2360's USS Andromeda 4. Antares Class FDP: 2210's (Note: said to be old in "Charlie X") 5. Apollo Class FDP: 2300's (Note: I have seen a web site state that the registry of the USS Apollo is NCC-6570. This information supposedly came from the episode "Tapestry".) 6. Bradbury Class FDP: 2360's LPR 7. Challenger Class FDP: 2280's or 2290's (Note: Design dates to this decade) 8. Cheyenne Class FDP: 2360's LPR 9. Chimera Class FDP: 2340's or 2350's or 2360's LPR 10. Constellation Class FDP: 2280's 11. Constitution Class FDP: 2220's 12. Daedalus Class FDP: 2160's LPR 13. Danube Class FDP: 2360's 14. Defiant Class FDP: 2370's LPR 15. Deneva Class FDP: 2300's LPR 16. Excelsior Class FDP: 2280's 17. Freedom Class FDP: 2350's or 2360's LPR 18. Galaxy Class FDP: 2350's 19. Hokule'a Class FDP: 2310's or 2320's LPR 20. Intrepid Class FDP: 2370's 21.Istanbul Class FDP: 2330's or 2340's 22.Korolev Class FDP: Two hypothesises- a. USS Korolev (NCC-2014) Korolev Class 2290's b. USS Goddard (NCC-59621) USS Korolev (NCC-2014) of different class 2340's or 2350's. LPR 23.Mediterranean Class FDP: 2330's or 2340's (Note: USS Wyoming in operation in 2349) LPR 24. Merced Class FDP: 2330's or 2340's LPR 25.Miranda Class FDP: 2250's or 2260's 26. Nebula Class FDP: 2340's or 2350's 27. New Orleans Class FDP: 2340's (Note: USS Rutledge (NCC-57295) was operational in 2349.) 28. Niagara Class FDP: 2340's 29. Norway Class FDP: 2360's LPR 30. Oberth Class FDP: 2260's (Note: First known mention of scouts-"The Apple". In TSFS, USS Grissom was identified as scout class. There are those who believe that the USS Columbia of TMP was an Oberth Class Scout. Movie takes place in 2271. FDP takes this into account.) 31. Olympic Class FDP: 2360's 32. Prometheus Class FDP: 2370's USS Prometheus (NX-59650) LPR 33. Renaissance Class FDP: 2330's (Note: Renaissance Class starships USS Aries NCC-45167, USS Hornet NCC-45231, and USS Maryland NCC-45109 were build before 2337. These ships may have been scouts. In "The Icarus Factor", Captain Jean Luc Picard calls the USS Aries a "small ship".) LPR 34. Rigel Class FDP: 2350's LPR 35. Sabre Class FDP: 2360's LPR 36. Sequoia Class FDP: 2350's or 2360's LPR 37. Sovereign Class FDP: 2370's 38. Soyuz Class FDP: 2270's 39. Surak Class FDP: 2330's or 2340's 40. Sydney Class FDP: 2270's or 2280's or 2290's LPR 41. Wambandu Class FDP: 2320's or 2330's or 2340's LPR 42. Yeager Class FDP: 2370's 43. Yorkshire Class FDP: 2340's or 2350's LPR
The classes of Yellowstone and Zodiac are omitted due to excessive debates about the existence of either one in the 'real' Star Trek universe. This is my construction history. It is purely speculative. I ask you not to critizice the history, but to critique it. Until more is learned, all discussion about construction history is speculative and not set in stone. One further point to make-I do not and will never will buy any publication or include any material from such a publication in my conversations where I feel the reliabilty of the material is dubious origin. This includes all computer games, all novels, all everything except the episodes, the encyclopedias, the technical manuals. I wish for you the reader to understand this.
posted
IC: "So when you said that "we are not supposed to use any of them" what you actually meant was "I am not going to include them in my own personal list"?" You do, I don't, the others don't have to.
Lindsly: Huge list. I think we have discussed some of the issues before. There might be some speculation concerning the Korelev and Challenger classes.
BTW: Compared to the Galaxy, everything of Starfleet is "a small ship".
posted
Sorry Steve...I forked over the $25 for the book and my personal feeling is that not only do the ship designs suck...but the ships have no identity in the game system.
At least the FASA system gave the ships some solid character and differences of their own.
Rant over...and now a word from our sponsor... NeghVar
------------------ Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent: "If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"
[This message was edited by NeghVar on March 23, 1999.]
posted
Remember that the ship stats are only a simple system. The Engage! game will give them more depth à la the FASA Starship Combat Simulator. And the ships are a tiny part of the book, sometimes people here have real tunnel vision. The book is worth $25 or whatever.
Bernd, you said: You do, I don't, the others don't have to.
What are we doing here? You seem to be restating my philosphy of Trek being a subjective experience with everyone being able to define their own 'canon'.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
