posted
The detection screen is inaccurate. According to two of the combatants, the Federation and the Romulans, the fleet had twenty-two ships. The screen has 17 ships. There are five ships missing from the screen. The reason could be is that the screen has limited space and Mr. Okuda could only fit in 17 ships, not the 22 that are mentioned.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If they pulled the tired old Hathaway out of mothballs, boy they must have been desperate for ships - ANY ships. I mean, I agree with Mark's logic there, but hey, they might has well have just used shuttles to supplement the taskforce instead.
The Hathaway's a dinosaur, and probably couldn't defend itself against a Lysian century pod. That was a dangerous mission, with possible combat potential against Romulan warbirds. If I were assigned to the Hathaway in that mission I would've used the first available lifeboat and got the hell outa there. A quick jury-rig job on that ship just wouldn't get it into shape for that type of mission.
But then again, they used a damn Antares Class frieghter as part of the taskforce remember (the Hermes), so OTOH, they must have been so desperate as to use any Federation ship in range.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
TSN: I am definitely still including the Valkyrie in my list, I just find it really damn annoying not to know where it appeared, especially since we've figured that out for all the other studio model ships. (The Oberth-class U.S.S. Valiant NCC-20000 from Generations, the Nebula-class U.S.S. Leeds NCC-70352 from the DS9 opening, and the Galaxy-class U.S.S. Trinculo NCC-71867, which is another possible exception, though it probably appeared in either "Sacrifice of Angels" or "Tears of the Prophets") I really wish we could find where the Valkyrie belongs.
Were there ever ANY Constellations that appeared at DS9 or elsewhere? Were there any other apps on TNG besides the Stargazer, the Hathaway, the Magellan, or the Victory???
It must belong SOMEWHERE!
Speaking of old or inferior ships called into battle, we see this also at the Battle of Wolf 359. There we saw several old Excelsior- and Constitution-class prototypes, and at least one standard Refit Connie.
Plus that damned Oberth.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I don't think the Hathaway would have been out of place at all. All Picard was looking for were enough ships to form a decent detection grid. That alone would more than likely be enough to dissuade the Romulans. Actually engaging a Starfleet vessel would plunge them into a war, or at the very least the mother of all sticky situations.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Hathaway may not have had anyone on it. It could have been remotely controlled. Or someone could have put it in place, activated the tachyon beam, and beamed out.
Monkey: Why "must" it be somewhere? The Trinculo wasn't on screen, either. I highly doubt it was in the DS9 war eps, since those Galaxies, AFAIK, were CGI.
Red Admiral: It's never been established (or even suggested, really, except by the names) that the Starfleet Antares class is the same as, or even related to, the generic freighter Antares class.
posted
TSN: A.) It must have been used somewhere or else why would they have renamed/numbered the model. The Trinculo was probably in a Dominion War ep, i.e. "Sacrifice of Angels" or "Tears of the Prophets." B.) The Starfleet Antares-class is indeed a freighter. You're getting mixed up. The Starfleet Antares has nothing to do with the Bajoran or Corvallen Antares-classes, but it is the same as the numerous other races' Antares-class freighters including the Talarians. The U.S.S. Antares (first federation ship of the type) was always a freighter. The Norkova is a modernized Antares-class Federation freighter. The Xhosa was originally Federation, and possibly even Starfleet.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As to the Dominion War Galaxies being CGI, I'm sure some of them were but DS9 was still extensively using physical models, and since only one Galaxy appeared in Voyager, (the Challenger) we know that the Trinculo must have appeared in DS9. The most likely place is still the Dom. War. eps.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
I am staking a position on the Antares from "Charlie X". I am concurring with the StarTrek.Com site. In the episode synposis for that episode, the Antares is identified as "S.S. Antares".
My reasons: 1.) The Antares is never identified as a starship by the Enterprise crew. 2.) The Antares crew are not wearing standard Starfleet uniforms. They are wearing civilian uniforms. Rf. Captain Merrick of the S.S. Beagle ("Bread and Circuses"). He is wearing the beige top and black pants of his service. Captain Merrick is not Starfleet; he washed out of Starfleet and joined the civilian service. 3.) The Antares is the class ship of the Antares Class. Rf. dedication plate of the S.S. Xhosa. Mr. Okuda has stated openly in the encyclopedia that he doesn't know the meaning of "Starship Class" on the Enterprise's dedication plate. He understands his system-a class is named after the first ship in that class-not the older system proposed by the first Star Trek producers. I will not go into details on the older system for it is poorly explained and has been de-canonized out of Star Trek. This is the best evidence for the Antares Class ships in Federation service.
Continuing with point three... The starships of Captain Kirk's time had a certain configuration ("The Doomsday Machine"). The Antares Class ships don't fit this model.
These three points for me make the Antares Class ships, and the S.S. Antares herself, a Federation civilian design.
Canonically, what is seen on screen or heard on screen, we don't know the class of the U.S.S. Hermes. She could be a member of a known or unknown class.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
Oh, boy, did I open up a real can of worms...
I may get swatted for doing this again, but I want to say that the Encyclopedia is canon!!! So are the other official reference materials including the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals, the Chronologies, episode Companions, and the Fact Files. That's not to say that they're all 100% accurate all of the time, but they are legitimate parts of canon Trek.
'Starship' is a term that has shifted in meaning since TOS. In TOS, it meant a specific type of ship. You could equate it to the term 'battleship' in today's Navy. (A ship with the heaviest armor and largest guns.) But by the 24th century, it means more 'warship' (again, equating to our terms) meaning basically any ship in the Navy. Okuda exclusively uses the 24th century terminology, so that's why he calls the Antares and "Antares-class starship." That doesn't mean it would have been called a Starship in the 23rd century. Furthermore, the info for the Antares (including the U.S.S. and the NCC) and the Hermes (and pretty much all other ships) are from one of various ship display charts seen on the bridge and elsewhere in TNG. Okuda has said that this is where most all of the info in the Encyc first appeared. What he used to do was create charts of Federation ships, mostly those which had been seen or mentioned in the past, and use them as displays in the show. So, if you really want to get picky, all of that info has appeared on the screen.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Forgot to mention: S.S. doesn't necessarily denote civilian ships, just those that aren't a part of the main body of Starfleet. The Beagle was a survey ship for the UESPA.
And, occaisionally, even some Starfleet ships have had S.S. prefixes. (i.e., TAS ships.) It just means that they're auxiliaries/support craft/anything other.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
The Encyclopedias, Tech Manuals, and Fact Files are not canon. "Canon" has a very specific definition, regardless of what you choose to personally accept and not accept.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I accept your position that the term 'starship' has changed in meaning. In Star Trek, the term 'starship' referred to the capital ships of the fleet. 'Starship' in the later series came to include all ships of the Starfleet.
When I attempt to identify a ship as Starfleet, I listen or look for certain indicators. In the spoken dialogue, the indicator is 'U.S.S.' or '(Federation)' starship. Indicators for visual identification are 'U.S.S.' or the first three units of the registry, ex. 'NCC'. For the Antares, I have only the dialogue to give status as to identity. This ship is not identified with 'U.S.S.' or as a starship.
As for Mr. Okuda's encyclopedia, I feel that any reference material worth its salt should give the bibliography for stated facts. Many of the details of starships and spaceships are given without this reference. For instance, in what episode is the U.S.S. Adelphi identified as an Ambassador Class starship with the registry of NCC-26849? Or, another case, where is the diagram in "Space Seed" that allegedly has the name and registry of the U.S.S. Constitution?
posted
Um, I think citing which episode each reference comes from is more than bibliographic enough. What do you exactly have in mind for the Encyclopedia?
Tim's bascically hit the canon point on the head: canon is, by definition, neither personally-defined nor consisting of anything other than a body of work from a common source, in this case the Paramount lot.
Back on topic, every Galaxy seen since "Way of the Warrior" has almost certainly been CGI. Which seems to point to the Trinculo being custom-labeled for the sole purpose of exhibition. Which is odd, because one would think they'd just restore the 4-footer to 1701-D if they we going to the trouble of relabeling.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
