posted
Remember also the Federation-class U.S.S. Entente in TMP at NCC-2120. Most of the "problematic" Okuda regos can be tweaked relatively painlessly, as they are only in background graphics, but the Jenolan irks me due to its high visibility, almost as much so as the Grissom...
I hate laziness. Jeffries was an aerospace artist before he got into television, and it shows in the system he came up with. Okuda was an advertising artist in Hawaii before he got called in to work on Star Trek IV. Given an either/or choice, I'll go with the one who knows what the hell they're doing. But what I'm trying to do now is figure out a plausible way for one system to evolve into the other -- take Okuda out of TOS and most of the headaches disappear.
--Jonah
[ March 26, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The Excelsior NX-2000 is tricky given the Entente, but at least the Entente doesn't look like the Excelsior (which is the problem with the Constitution NCC-1700 and the Constellation NCC-1017).
The simplest explanation here is that the registry of the Excelsior was reserved at least ten years back, with the ship being a new milestone. We have the same problem with the Prometheus. According to my timeline, the Excelsior would've been launched in 2282, as opposed to 2272/73 of TMP.
This means that we cannot estimate launch dates using registries, but at least we don't have a situation where the class ship has a higher registry than its followers.
[ March 26, 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. I use the cruisers as a rough estimation of the pacing of Starfleet's evolution.
And what's problematic about the Prometheus? 74913 is appropriate to when we see her...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, technically we can't read that number onscreen...if we could then it would be canonical that a ship can have two registries: 1305-E/71807, NCC-75633/74205, etc...
[ March 26, 2002, 16:16: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
By that logic, the Br!ttain made it possible for a ship to have two names.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, it would at least explain why correcting a wrong hull name is no big priority; after all, nobody cares what's on the hull because it's more of a honorary thing! And besides, why shouldn't the captain of the Brattain be unable to have some fun? Who cares if the hull says Jenolin if the Okudagrams have the correct Jenolan? If I want to use a fun registry such as NCC-2010-B for the U.S.S. Nash, I could do it. Etc.
[ March 26, 2002, 16:22: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. --Jonah
That would make sense. The Galaxy project took a long time to come to fruition, so why couldn't others (like Excelsior)? The ship may have been (under construction) for quite awhile.
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Then again, if the Galaxies took so long to complete, why do they have such high registry numbers?
Of course, we can ignore the noncanon number for USS Galaxy and instead say that she was NCC-28543 or something. Or then the project was REALLY old, and NCC-1701 and NCC-1305 were actually the original, intended registries of the E-D and the Yamato-E, respectively..
I personally don't see much benefit in saying that the supposed Jeffries system was ever in use. There's so little evidence for it - virtually the only ship class that supports the idea would be the Miranda class, with Constitutions giving some quarterbacking but suffering from the "Constellation handicap". And even the Mirandas weren't numbered by Jeffries.
quote:Of course, we can ignore the noncanon number for USS Galaxy and instead say that she was NCC-28543 or something.
...not to mention that canon number from TotP
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Originally posted by Peregrinus: For starters, the registry is locked in when the ship is ordered/laid down, and has no bearing on launch date. --Jonah
Darkwing said:
That would make sense. The Galaxy project took a long time to come to fruition, so why couldn't others (like Excelsior)? The ship may have been (under construction) for quite awhile.
You know... that's what I said... I just took longer to say it
Exactly - the Exxie was really NEW TECH - "the great experiment" - it could have been started way back - even during TOS... the Entente could have come along looking OLDER than the Exxie - since they still had to keep building ships - they couldn't just STOP and wait for the Exxie to be finished.
Timo Said:
Then again, if the Galaxies took so long to complete, why do they have such high registry numbers?
Well, we've seen so many ships that have older registries, that use galaxy parts - even an Oberth (yeah right) using Galaxy testing tech - the Pegasus...
I guess a general 'tech' test was taken out on various aspects on various ships over the years, but the actual Galaxy building/planning was when the registry occured. Compared where the Excelsior was TOTALLY new out-right - EVERYTHING was new/to be tested with her lauch.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The Galaxy class is like the CVN carriers today. It takes 8-10 years to build just one of these ships. From the drawing board to the commissioning of the ship. The Galaxy class if we look at the TNG TM construction does not take place until the 2350's. That means in reality construction really took 8-12 years not 20 like most think. I find that reasonable considering that the ship is very large. The Excelsior was perhaps being design in the late 2260's and construction probably began like in the mid-2270's. That's why maybe the reason that the E-nil was refitted, because design and construction for a new ship takes so long. Then again the new E-nil was really a whole new ship with just a few key parts from the original design in place.
The way I see it, is that the Nebula, the Cheyenne, and the New Orleans are classes that were being designed and along the way, the Galaxy class parts were used to speed up the design process. Or they were unused block numbers and were used later on.
The TOS system might have worked if people had actually used it. It would have made it far easier. However I find it very likely that some people would forget what Class A number was, and instead used Class B number for Ship B, so Ship A and Ship B are the same class but have a different number so they conflict. But thats just me.
Hell, now NX-01 is conflict with the Dauntless which was also the NX-01.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I postulate a twenty-year cycle for each of the Starship/Explorer development projects -- in a twenty-on, twenty-off pattern -- followed by twenty-year refit cycles after completion. At each refit cycle, the class is evaluated and either is given the go-ahead for another cycle, or scheduled to be phased out of service.
So the Constitution was launched in 2243, and had a major refit in 2263 that boosted the crew capacity from ~200 to ~430, etc. That same year the Great Experiment was begun, and wouldn't be completed until 2285, due to problems with developing the Transwarp drive. In the Constitution's 2383 review, it was decided to begin retiring the class in favor of the new Excelsior class, but the failure of Transwarp in 2285 put a hold on that. That year saw the 'fleet registry system change, and the Excelsior go through its first service cycle retrofitting it to conventional (if more advanced) warp drive and testing some variant designs. Then, in 2303, the Ambassador Class Development Project got underway, with better results. Then, in 2343, the Galaxy Class Development Project began.
Given that sort of cycle, the next Explorer project (what I call the Nova Explorator Development Project, in that the actual ship hasn't been named yet -- and also to support the TNG TM appendix on the subject) will officially begin in 2383... *checks watch* ...Which is coming up soon.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As for no one using the TOS system -- Matt did when he created the "Court Martial" wall chart. It's only later, with Greg Jein's, FASA's, and Michael Okuda's attempts to say all those "Star Ship"s were Constitution-class that things get stupid.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Mike prepared the graphics and dedication plaque in conjunction with Rick's input. Rick himself said a while back in his newsgroup that he went over to Foundation to look over the shoulders of the CG artists and saw them using a number other than the one he had suggested, but by then it was too late to correct it.
Regarding the Galaxy:
One of the Galaxy-class ships in "Sacrifice of Angels"... or was it "Tears of the Prophets"... was seen to bear the rego 'NCC-70637'. I doubt it was coincidence.
--Jonah
[ March 28, 2002, 08:53: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
But what I'm trying to do now is figure out a plausible way for one system to evolve into the other -- take Okuda out of TOS and most of the headaches disappear.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
