posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
3. The registry comes from the Encyclopedia, and while it does seem a bit of a stretch, people have rationalized explanations for how the Carolina could be a Daedalus. Anyways, it was just a hoax by the Klingons, so I don't think we have to worry about it too much.

---

quote:

---

4. The Centaur is officially an Excelsior-class starship variant, as per the DS9 Technical Manual.

---

quote:

---

6. No, I don't think there's any reason to think that the Constellation is not the original. Primarily, for the same reason why there's no reason the Excelsior from "Interface" can't be the same as from STIII. These ships last a long time. They may be overhauled many-times-over, and undergo countless systems upgrades throughout their service, but there's really no reason why the ship itself can't easily last up to a hundred years and possibly beyond. (This very subject is discussed in the TNG Technical Manual. The Galaxy-class was designed to last for that long.) If the Constellation was a fairly new vessel (still carrying an NX- number and undergoing certification tests) in 2293 (at the time of TUC), I think it's perfectly plausible that it is still seeing duty in the early 2370's.

---

Actually, given the registry of NCC-1974 plus the concept of some chronological basis for registries, the Constellation Class would have preceded Excelsior, NCC-2000. This is especially true if one assumes that there might be "development time" considerations involved. (In other words, even if NCC-2000 was a long time coming, there's no reason to assume that development of NCC-1974 would have been longer . . . it's just a four-nacelled, "overworked, underpowered" beast, after all.)

Further, though the Galaxy-Class spaceframe was specifically designed to last a hella-long time, assuming refits, there is nothing to suggest that earlier starships were capable of similar lifetimes. Indeed, Morrow's (albeit erroneous) line in Star Trek III about the Enterprise being 20 years old suggests that lifetimes of 100 years would have been outside the recommended design life of a starship of the TMP era.

Sure, you can do rebuilds, refits, et cetera, but there comes a point where you've gotta go in and replace the spaceframe, which means you've just torn the whole damned ship apart.

[QUOTE]11. No, the second Intrepid has always been an Excelsior no matter where you look. (Encyclopedia, web site, and probably from an okudagram originally.)[QUOTE]

By the use of the term "probably", I assume that the evidence is either from the Encyclopedia or the website. Thus, with the strictest view of canon, there's nothing to suggest that the Intrepid was an old fart Excelsior. Granted, there's nothing to suggest it's a Galaxy, but one would presuppose that it is a newer starship than a 3xxxx.

(UBB Code is tiresome . . . simple quotation marks follow.)

"13. The "reality" of it is that there were two ships bearing the name and number of the Melbourne. The Excelsior was seen in "Emissary" (DS9), and the Nebula was seen in BOTH "Best of Both Worlds" (TNG) and "Emissary". I refuse to simply ignore the existence of one or the other. I think there's plenty of rationalizations that could be made, likely having to do with the scrambling of as many vessels as possible for the battle (including scrap-jobs, etc.) or something along a similar line. In any case, the fact is that there were two Melbournes."

But with the same damned registry? No sense at all in that (Defiant notwithstanding). I'd ditch the Nebula.

"4. Actually, the correct spelling is MERRIMACK. The first edition of the Encyclopedia spelled it wrong. The error is corrected in the later editions. Easy to get mixed up, though. There were two Union vessels in service during the Civil War, the Merrimack and the Merrimac. The former was the ship that was sunk in the Elizabeth River, and then whose hulk was salvaged by the Confederates and converted into the ironclad Virginia. Since this is the ship that the Nebula was named for, the 'k' spelling is correct. I believe the okudagrams bear that out."

Harper's Weekly, the New York Herald, and Quarterly Review subscribe to the Merrimac spelling. Also, every single lithograph from that era at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/merimak2.htm (the official U.S. Navy site) subscribes to the spelling Merrimac (except for the last, for which it is impossible to tell), and these were period pieces. Of course, the site itself argues for the Merrimack spelling, but offers no evidence to support this view. Similarly, most sites which suggest that the ship was named after the river Merrimack (as opposed to the valley known as Merrimac) make no evidenciary claims. I say, screw 'em.

"16. The Oberth from Generations was labeled with that name and registry. Sorry if you don't like it. "

Not your fault . . . it's just stupid. I noted, however, that there was no registry offerred for the Miranda from Generations. Wouldn't it be better to have a Miranda Valiant?

"17. This is an admitted conjecture. I don't think we've yet received a definite confirmation as to whether this model was in fact used in the battle sequences of DS9 "A Time to Stand", but most of us seem to be pretty confident that it was."

I can't imagine the logic of changing the registry but keeping the name, from the perspective of the model-builders, unless they were just lazy that day.

"18. Err...because it was converted to the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A at the end of STIV?! "

Um, no. Star Trek V is contrary to that notion, showing an Enterprise which has been finished in something of a rush. Further, there is no evidence in Star Trek IV that any vessel has been renamed Enterprise, or, if so, what vessel that was. As far as renaming is concerned, it might as well be Shane Johnson's U.S.S. Ti-Ho, NCC-1798.

"19. NCC-4000 comes from a display on the Enterprise bridge in STIII."

The website lists it as being from Star Trek II.

--------------------
. . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
Um, no. There is an Excelsior Class variant shown on page 156, but I see nothing to suggest that it is the Centaur. It lacks numerous Centaur features, most notably the Centaur's many nutsacks hanging under the saucer. I also see nothing to suggest the oversized Miranda Class torpedo launcher thingy . . . as far as can be seen from the pic in the DS9TM, the Excelsior Class variant referred to is just a saucer, pylons, and nacelles.

---

quote:

---

Harper's Weekly, the New York Herald, and Quarterly Review subscribe to the Merrimac spelling. Also, every single lithograph from that era at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/merimak2.htm (the official U.S. Navy site) subscribes to the spelling Merrimac (except for the last, for which it is impossible to tell), and these were period pieces. Of course, the site itself argues for the Merrimack spelling, but offers no evidence to support this view. Similarly, most sites which suggest that the ship was named after the river Merrimack (as opposed to the valley known as Merrimac) make no evidenciary claims. I say, screw 'em.

---

quote:

---

I can't imagine the logic of changing the registry but keeping the name, from the perspective of the model-builders, unless they were just lazy that day.

---

quote:

---

Um, no. Star Trek V is contrary to that notion, showing an Enterprise which has been finished in something of a rush.

---

quote:

---

Further, there is no evidence in Star Trek IV that any vessel has been renamed Enterprise, or, if so, what vessel that was. As far as renaming is concerned, it might as well be Shane Johnson's U.S.S. Ti-Ho, NCC-1798.

---

So, they built an entirely new ship in the few days (perhaps even hours, though it is more likely days, since Gilian had time to find an assignment on a science vessel...) that comprised the last 10 minutes of the film? Damn, that's fast. Scotty would be amazed...

Having it be the Yorktown was Gene's suggestion and has since been backed by all official reference materials and has been recognized by TPTB. Johnson pulled the Ti-Ho from one of two places: thin air or his ass.

quote:

---

"19. NCC-4000 comes from a display on the Enterprise bridge in STIII."

The website lists it as being from Star Trek II.

---

Sorry. I think the display actually appeared in both films along w/the other Tech Manual screens.

-MMoM

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
And where do you think Roddenberry pulled his info from?

---

A similar location, but he has the luxury of having his recognized by TPTB.

posted                      

quote:

---

So, they built an entirely new ship in the few days (perhaps even hours,
though it is more likely days, since Gilian had time to find an
assignment on a science vessel...) that comprised the last 10 minutes of
the film? Damn, that's fast. Scotty would be amazed...

---

No one says they built the thing from the keel up, MMoM; they just gave it a new name. What you're proposing is, in that same few days, they repaired a ship capable of towing a Constitution-class vessel at warp (remember, the probe had paralyzed all the Earth-orbiting starships), sent it out to wherever the Yorktown was, repaired the Spacedock facility in the meantime, towed Yorktown back to Earth, repaired her, possibly gave her a new bridge module (the one on the screen looks a lot darker than the E-A's at the end), gave her a new paint job AND reassigned her entire command crew.... And this is supposed to be simpler than renaming a ship already in Spacedock?

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Woodside Kid ]

--------------------
The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dax:
we don't know how much time had passed between the return to Earth of Kirk's crew and their assignment to the Ent-A. The hearing where Kirk was demoted may have been a few days after there return, but they may not have got their new ship until months after that. Just because the events only take 10 minutes in the movie doesn't mean anything.

---