posted
Dude, no one is saying ALL unseen ships were Connies. But the Valiant is, according to the TOS production staff's original starship list.
And once again, Paramount has NEVER said that 2245 was the commisssioning of the Constitution class. Only that of the E-nil.
Besides, (even though I personally don't) those of you who think registry numbers are chronological should have a problem with a 2245 commissioning, given that the Connie's numbers go down as far as NCC-956! (The Eagle from TUC.)
2245 is definitely waaaaay to late a date for the entire class to be commissioned.
Unless...
(Just thought of this)
Maybe they meant (or at least maybe it could be interpreted to mean) that particular configuration of the Connie. Cause didn't they give a new commissioning date for the refit-configuration? Maybe the 2245 date is a refit-commisioning date.
Of course, there's still a bit of a problem with this, given that the E-nil didn't LOOK like that when it was commissioned. The model they have shown is the series version, not the older one from "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before."
*grumble* *grumble*
-MMOM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
We know these two facts: first, in the years that followed the crash of the S.S. Columbia , Starfleet introduced a new class which were more advanced than previous classes. This new class was introduced in the 18 years between the crash and the episode "The Cage". "The Cage" is eleven years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before". U.S.S. Enterprise belongs to this new class.
Second, the duotronics revolution occured twenty-five years before "The Ultimate Computer". All new ships of the fleet were given these advanced computers. U.S.S. Enterprise has doutronic computers.
Combined, these two facts tell us that the alpha-designation class starships, later known first as Enterprise then Constitution , were first constructed in the 2240's. (I am assuming at the time of the commission of the first of this new class that Starfleet was employing the system seen in Enterprise and referred to briefly in TOS .)
The U.S.S. Valiant could not have been in this new class. She was destroyed fifty years ago.
As for registry chronology, there didn't exist sequential registries in this century. The Oberth Class and the Excelsior Class share many similiar design features, yet the former class has ships with registries in the 600s whereas the latter has registries in the 2000s.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So what is wrong with the idea that ships can take on the registries of older ships - like the Enterprise - but not with a letter. Or the idea that fits better - that the Oberths in the 100's are just older ships that have been refitted with new tech - like the Enterprise. This - I think explains away the Akira/Steamrunner etc discrepancies... they were built before TNG - around the Cardassian Wars... it was just that they have been refitted and upgraded with current technology after being pulled out of mothballs.
Andrew
[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Then what would be the point in having registry numbers? From what I gather regestries are to keep track of the ships over a long period of time, regardless of their names. For instance, someone wants to do a search on all the voyages of the Farragut...well a computer would then spit out everything on all of the Farraguts...but if you only wanted the logs of the Nebula Class Farragut then you could specify it with its regestry number (NCC-60597). If you wanted the logs of the Excelsior Class Farragut you would have to specify the registery NCC-38907 (yes, I am making this up) and the computer would note that NCC-38907 was originally called Intrepid but the name was changed when command of the ship was transfered to the surviving crew of the Nebula class vessel and the crew of the Intrepid was transfered to the new prototype. But if your right and you can number ships any way you please then there would be no way to distinguish between ships of the same name. Obviously the Enterprises were special cases and are infact differentiated with a letter sufix...the second defiant is a lazy cockup plain and simple. As for why some of the Oberths have such low registeries and yet they look contemporary with the Excelsior, it is possible that they originally looked very different but were drastically refitted in the 2280s, much like the Constitution class.
posted
Or, perhaps, at the time they allocated certain blocks of registry numbers to different types of starship (i.e. 500s to scouts, 1700s to heavy cruisers), and the numbers were used whenever the ships of that type were constructed. That would also explain why we heard a reference to the dreadnought Entente and its 2120 registry in TMP, fourteen years before we saw the Excelsior.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
The idea that the Federation had Constitutions in the 2220s is almost unthinkable. Connies were always established to be at the forefront of the fleet, a flagship design. The thought that the Federation would not overtake that design for 65 years is bizarre. By the movie era and beyond, the flagship roles are swapped out every 10-20 years.. less in some cases. How would the Federation spend the bulk of the 23rd century not designing starships?
This is a difficult thing for me to have to say, because i respect Ships of the StarFleet, and give credence to a lot of the content (i.e. i will continue to beleive there is a Belknap-class, etc until proven otherwise.. so much of SotSF's data adds beautifully to the ST universe)
but we also have to recognize that when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators, SotSF is.. complete.. bullshit..! it was made up by some fanboys. They love Star Trek, they can draw better than the current manual-makers, but its still way outside of what needs to be recognized by Paramount.
Other things that are in SotSF that arent real The Enterprise being commissioned in 2220 The naming of the 'Avenger-class' The Belknap's cloaking device (most likely) the refitting & existence of Horizon-class & Archon-class All the dates..
And the Valiant? The TOS staff also had data that at times made the show appear to be in the 2700s. Backstage stuff that doesnt make it onscreen.. didnt make it onscreen!.. and the Valiant's dates point at the 2210s decade, even before the erroneous SotSF dates for the Constitution-class.
[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: but we also have to recognize that when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators, SotSF is.. complete.. bullshit..!
You're joking, right? Ships of the Star Fleet (and the other fandom material it was based on) got the 2220s date from The Making of Star Trek, which was written with the input and consent of Gene Roddenberry, the ultimate "Trek creator." Roddenberry wanted the Starship Class ships to have been around for about forty years when that book was written.
In other words, when it comes to the intentions of the Trek creators at the time, SotSF was absolutely right! Or did you mean current Trek creators? That this was later changed may mean that the book is ultiamtely wrong, but not that Todd Guenther was wrong for using the date. It is simply a case where Star Trek's producers decided to ignore the original intent.
Don't get me wrong: it's their right. Anything that wasn't established onscreen is fair game for alterations. I don't fault them for changing the dates around, or for using "Miranda" instead of "Avenger," or for calling the refit "Constitution-class." However, it is quite unfair to suggest that anyone who followed those ideas was wrong to do so, since at the time they had no way of knowing that a scenic artist named Mike Okuda would end up deciding these things. All they had to go on is the notes and quotes of those who came before.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Other things that are in SotSF that arent real The Enterprise being commissioned in 2220
Since you already mentioned this, it doesn't exactly fall into the category of "other things."
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: The naming of the 'Avenger-class'
Once again, the name Avenger was taken from the people who designed the ship... even if it was ultiamtely contradicted.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: The Belknap's cloaking device
Since the Belknap has never been established to exist in canon, how do you know it didn't have a cloak?
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: (most likely) the refitting & existence of Horizon-class & Archon-class
There is no canon to contradict these speculations.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: All the dates..
Same story... the dates are essentially based on "Miri" (TOS), in which a bicycle from 1960 is said to be 300 years old. Later dates are conjectural, just as Okuda's are.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: And the Valiant? The TOS staff also had data that at times made the show appear to be in the 2700s. Backstage stuff that doesnt make it onscreen.. didnt make it onscreen!..
Now this I agree with.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: and the Valiant's dates point at the 2210s decade, even before the erroneous SotSF dates for the Constitution-class.
"Erroneous" suggests that the dates were a mistake... which they weren't. Try "later-changed."
posted
About registries - may I retract my statement about new ships using older (pre-used) registries like the Enterprises without the suffix. I realised when I hit send it was sorta silly and now reading it again - and the replies - it is definately silly.
I'll keep the idea though about the Refitting of the Mirandas and the Oberths.
I like the idea of the blocks of registries. Someone mentioned that ships are given registries when their initially started... Since the Excelsior was such an experiment-laden ship - it presumably was started a while ago... and thus started out with a 2000 registry, Blocks or not. This allows the Jenolen 2010 and the Entent etc. This 'spaceframe registry' idea also works for the Akiras/Steamrunners/Prometheus etc. Ignoring the name - the registries CAN work - since the ideas and the frames/construction could have begun well before we see the ship actually running. Look at the 5**** Prometheus (even if this is wrong) it could be explained away because it took a long time to get this ship out into space. It's initial design/construction/spaceframe might have been begun 20 years earlier - but the radical 3 in one idea probably took a while to work - probably after the simpler 2 sectioned Galaxy Class was given a thorough workout... This also works with the E-D been given a 7***** registry... and later - presumably when given the name 'Enterprise' was redubbed/reregistered NCC-1701-D.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
