Must we go over this again? Sternbach confirmed on the TrekBBS (in spite of the whole newsgroup post thing that went down much earlier) that he believes the Intrepid to be NCC-74600. Not really canon per se, I know, but it's from a fairly reliable source and if there are ever to be more technical articles in ST: The Magazine, that's probably the number they would use...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But something at least resembling it. It's just a question of finally getting it in print in the mag or some other reference.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
"Wondering out loud, do we know that the NCC-1701 was the first ship to be refit to look like that? Is there anything to say that there weren't Connies built in, say, 2270 that looked like that?"
From memory:
"We've just spent 18 months *redesigning* and refitting the Enterprise"
"The engines haven't even been tested at warp power."
Plus, the Enterprise-class label in STII. Plus, the fact that ships with seemingly minor variations can change class (Soyuz/Miranda, Danube/Yellowstone). Plus, the fact that like the Yellowstone, the Ent-A had a different warp drive system, and could well have been preceded by the Constitution that first incorporated the new warp-drive system (of course, it could've just as well been something other than warp drive).
Okuda's system is too simplistic, inconsistent with both established onscreen facts as well as production realities requiring that the same models represent different classes. Still, even if he names 200 ships Nebula-class, the 201st need not be.
Starfleet probably chose the Enterprise, being the most famous Constitution-class ship, for the TMP refit. Then, it might have decided to honor the Constitution likewise (and at the same time reduce some classification confusion that resulted because of its initial move).
It's also possible that the Constitution (refit) designation was merely a later policy move because the original Enterprise was technically the same ship even after the refit. However, I'm against ignoring the fact in normal cases, minor differences count as a class distinction, because of aforementioned evidence.
posted
Especially given that, at the time, he had as much to do with official Trekdom as Jimmy The Legless Hobo who lives down by the pond.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, don't get me wrong, were he to make some sort of firm decision I would be the first of my sad, pale cadre to add it to the list. I'm just saying it isn't quite there, yet.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was positive Sternbach said the Intrepid registry was NCC-74450... But is 74600 the actual correct one...?
quote:On the other hand, if you want to bring in the desktop models as examples, you're an idiot
I'm an idiot am I? I take it you refute the existence of the Melbourne, that which was one of those desk models...?
I for one believe that desk models we've seen in the show represent actual ships that existed. Do you believe for a minute that the likes of Picard and Sisko sit there at their desks playing with starship model kits, inventing various designs for fun?
*******
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Yeager, utilizing the Intrepid Class is changed into a variant of Intrepid Class, and as a one-of-a-kind ship would probably be called Yeager-Type, not an individual class of any kind. Because as I see it, you need more than one ship of the same kind to make a new class. And I can't see how this ship, with this configuration went into mass production.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
"We've just spent 18 months *redesigning* and refitting the Enterprise"
"The engines haven't even been tested at warp power."
Failing to see how those quotes prove that there wasn't a Movie-design Connie in service before the Enterprise. All they say is that they haven't tested the Enterprise's warp engines (specific to that ship), and they have bene redesigning the whole ship (again, specific to the Enterprise).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Yeager, utilizing the Intrepid Class is changed into a variant of Intrepid Class, and as a one-of-a-kind ship would probably be called Yeager-Type, not an individual class of any kind. Because as I see it, you need more than one ship of the same kind to make a new class. And I can't see how this ship, with this configuration went into mass production.
And what we are trying to say, bringing this back and forth to one more pointless reverberation, is that we all think you are wrong, the Yeager is a design which has a class designation, may be more than one of it, and is certainly not bogged down by any variant status because it is simply FAR TOO DIFFERENT from the Intrepid to recieve that kind of designation.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If you think that the Yeager is a class of ship that's fine. I don't think for one minute you'd be in the majority, speak for yourself, not make sweeping statements that that's what everyone else thinks.
And if you think that the Yeager is 'TOO FAR DIFFERENT' from the Intrepid, then you must be thinking about a different Yeager. I see an Intrepid Class, restructured and modified for a different fleet application. It is, in my opinion, a variant of Intrepid Class. If you think I'm wrong, fine, that's your opinion.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
It's "FAR TOO DIFFERENT", actually. And it is. Even moreso than a Nebula to a Galaxy. But, now that you mention it, I see that it is an Intrepid class, no difference in any way, at all. Identical.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sarcasm does not become you. There seems to be a mental block occurring when the ambiguous word 'varaint' is mentioned. So yet again, I shall explain it in plainer English.
The Yeager is a variation, a differing alternative if you will, to the Intrepid design, much like the Nebula is a differing variation of the Galaxy design. I did not mean 'Intrepid Variant' as a designation, but as an observation. Do you understand me now?
..And one is welcome to believe its a mass produced class if one wishes, it bothers me not.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Mark, I think it's just a case of that, around here, when someone calls a ship a variant of another, there are only minor differences between the two. So, in the language of the land, an Intrepid variant would have static nacelles or something, not much else different.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeh I see that and appreciate it, but the term is ambiguous and often used rather loosely. For instance some may call the Saladin a Constitution variant as a passing comment. We need another term that sets the two meanings apart.
Perhaps 'variant' to mean the same class, only minor differences, and 'variation' - different/or unknown class, significant differences but of from the same family.
ie.
USS Rhode Island - Nova Variant USS Curry - Excelsior variation.
Heck I don't know...I'm confused already
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
