posted
Sternbach's doubletalk about refits is vague enough for me to continue believing in whatever I want to believe. Which in this case is "Ships of the Star Fleet" with minor modifications to the original Constitution launch dates...
I'd like to think of the Carolina as a relatively weak vessel, even though this wasn't specified in "Friday's Child". Were another Constitution in trouble, Kirk probably wouldn't be that worried, and might set priorities differently.
As for the theory on early Oberths, I think this is an unproductive approach - we could have an unseen TOS class, and yet we make it a known one?
Further oddsandends: Pike's crew of 200 need not be the standard for Constitutions at any era. He could have suffered major casualties during a long mission. Or less crew than usual could have embarked, to save on consumables during an exceptionally long cruise. Or perhaps Pike was merely "tired of being responsible for" 200 people, whereas the other 230 he rather fancied? Or wasn't responsible for?
Heck, the 200 could have been his passengers (including the civilian-attired couple we saw in the beginning), and not his crew of 430. Perhaps people evacuated from a fallen Earth colony. Or relatives of Starfleet top brass on tour to the scenic parks of Rigel XXX?
posted
The USS Intrepid has a crew of 430. This alone qualifies her by many as a Constitution Class starship.
When I speak about the technology of the ships, I am speaking solely of the technology mentioned in the first series. When we compare the known facts on engineering, I see an interesting distinction emerge. The J Class starship, mentioned in "The Menagerie, Part 1", was a ship equiped with baffle plates. This was apparently a very important part of a starship's engineering assembly. If this plate ruptured, deadly radiation (the "delta rays") was emitted and, if not contained, the ship would be destroyed. This is what happened with the U.S.S. Antares. I never heard of the U.S.S. Enterprise or her sister ships having baffle plates. Considering they were the state of the art ships in the 2260's, this suggests for me the possibiltity that baffle plates and the ships which used them were of a earlier generation of technology. Ergo, U.S.S. Antares is of an older class of ships. (U.S.S. Hermes' sister ship and, a class ship, the U.S.S. Antares I see as a homeage to this destroyed starship.)
We don't know much about the U.S.S. Carolina. She is an active duty ship that supposedly sent two distress calls. (I am basing this last fact on dialogue. From I can gather, there was one call from the S.S. Dierdre, a call off-screen from the U.S.S. Carolina, and a call on-screen from the U.S.S. Carolina.) She is not a heavy cruiser; the U.S.S. Enterprise is a heavy cruiser. What does this leave us with? She could be a destroyer, a scout, a patrol ship, a freighter, or some other type of ship. I think people believe she is a freighter because of her association with the S.S. Dierdre and the distress calls. I don't agree. I think the Klingons were desperate, and seeing how the U.S.S. Enterprise was ending a search-and-recovery mission for the S.S. Dierdre, attempted additional distress calls with the call letters of a Starfleet ship. We never did learn if the U.S.S. Carolina was in fact distressed as Scotty dismissed the calls as fake and returned to Capella IV.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
your logic fails you, my good city.
1) There is no qualifier that specifically establishes that a Constitutiononly has a crew of 430.. there could be several other types of ships with large crews like that..
the only reason Intrepid is commonly referred to as Constitution-class is because behind the scenes info (the writer's bible, the Okudapedia) believes it to be.
i.e. a Constitution of 1701's configuration at that time must have a crew of 430, but it does not necessarily follow that only Constitutions can have that crew number. There could be 430 people on a T'Mura-class long range explorer or on a Nevada-class colony transport.
2) Just because the Enterprise's baffle plates were not mentioned, it cannot be conclusively surmised that it does not have them, only that they were not mentioned. The Antares' age is dervied from the dialogue of the episode, however..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Well, not quite arbitrarily. I believe he did it because of his listing of the Hermes from "Redemption" as an Antares-class vessel on the display graphic that SoundEffect has recently discovered. Granted, there's no particular need for the TOS Antares to be the latter's class ship, but it does make the overall list look nice.
A few months ago, when I was updating my shiplist, I also added some side notes. One referred to the "Antares Class." At first, I was under the assumption that the Starfleet Antares class was the same type of ship as the modular freighters (Batris, Norkova, Xhosa, etc.), and that the TOS Antares was the class ship.
Now however, I've changed my feelings about that. I believe that the Starfleet Antares is just another saucer/nacelled design, which has nothing to do with the non-Starfleet freighters of the same coincidental class name. I realize that Okuda made that Antares-class plaque for the Xhosa, but I think it was just meant as a homage to the TOS ship, & not meant to be taken seriously. And despite what the 'pedia says, there's absolutely no reason why the TOS Antares should be considered the class ship of the Hermes. The U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 wasn't the class ship of the Constellation class, so whay does the Antares have to be?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with about 90% of that. I like to think that the Hermes is a newly built (at the time anyway) ship whose design is a refit of the original Antares Class. Of course I do have an ulterior motive for thinking that.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: A few months ago, when I was updating my shiplist, I also added some side notes. One referred to the "Antares Class." At first, I was under the assumption that the Starfleet Antares class was the same type of ship as the modular freighters (Batris, Norkova, Xhosa, etc.), and that the TOS Antares was the class ship.
Now however, I've changed my feelings about that. I believe that the Starfleet Antares is just another saucer/nacelled design, which has nothing to do with the non-Starfleet freighters of the same coincidental class name. I realize that Okuda made that Antares-class plaque for the Xhosa, but I think it was just meant as a homage to the TOS ship, & not meant to be taken seriously. And despite what the 'pedia says, there's absolutely no reason why the TOS Antares should be considered the class ship of the Hermes. The U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 wasn't the class ship of the Constellation class, so whay does the Antares have to be?
It doesn't *have* to be. But why is everyone hell-bent on its having *not* to be? Can you show any more evidence for your theory than for Okuda's? Doubtful. Your "feelings" on the subject are as much your own conjecture as the Encyclopedia info is his. The only difference is that his work is in one HELL of a better position to be used for official reference than yours.
I know we will never agree on such subjects as these, and I'm not trying to simply be argumentative for the sake of argument itself. But I wonder why your position is that everything in the Encyclopdeia and related sources that's conjectural should immediately be thrown out the window? Mine is rather that when real evidence from verbal and visual references within the show indicate strongly something other than what is written in the book, then the incorrect information should be supplanted by the canon info. Put simply, you begin with the assumption that everything in the Encyclopdedia is false unless proven true, wheras I assume everything is true until proven false.
Why shouldn't the TOS Antares be the class ship of the Hermes? Simply because of the time difference, or is there something a little better-founded? Why shouldn't the Antares' and Hermes' designs be the same as (or rather similar to) those of the Xhosa and Norkova? Is there really any reason? IMO it's good continuity to have all these ships tie together.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:IMO it's good continuity to have all these ships tie together.
Good continuity is not determined simply by having gratuitous names dropped all over the place. Good continuity establishes a logical reason for the consistency -- or even the INconsistency, if there was a change. It's in the story, the background... not the name itself.
Perhaps I rely a little too much on analogies to the present day, but let me try anyway: Assume that for some bizarre reason, some Starfleet officer creates a holodeck program about the exploits of the United States Navy during World War II. In the first program, or "episode," (set in 1941) they mention the carrier USS Yorktown. It's never seen or mentioned again in the program. But several years later, that same Starfleet officer writes a second holodeck series about the Korean War. In that story, he again mentions the carrier USS Yorktown.
Now, would a knowledgeable participant in the program simply assume that these two ships were one and the same? Or would he stop to notice that the USS Yorktown (CV-6) was destroyed in the Battle of Midway, and the one that served during the time of the Korean War was named in the first one's honor?
Obviously there are many permutations of the above scenarios... my point is, that the same name does not on its own imply an identity.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Atop of that come the dramatic-aesthetic reasons. Usually, Starfleet ship classes are relatively large - that is, we eventually find there are many ships per class. Thus, the odds of meeting a "class ship" are inherently low. Not that such an encounter would be impossible, not at all. But the rarity of such an event should warrant some sort of an on-air comment. In the case of the Antares, we get none, whereas in the case of, say, the Prometheus or the Defiant, we got plenty.
And making a random ship-of-the-week a "class ship" means that instead of two cool new names, we only get one. Were USS Antares to be the sixteenth ship of Canopus class, we'd be 100% better off than in the case the Antares was of Antares class!
I do see the attraction of creating as much commonality or putative common origins between the numerous Antares designs as possible. Adding USS Antares to that unholy mess seems counterproductive, though.
posted
The Antares Class matter is clouded further more by how classes were conceived and used in the 2260's and later, to a smaller degree, in other series and films. We have a few superclasses: Starship Class (TOS), Scout Class (ST III), and Runabout Class (DS9). If we consider the origin and design of the S.S. Xhosa's class, we may have another superclass, as suggested by a person on this board, the Antares Class. The Antares Class may be a superclass designation for ships not of Starfleet origin and that serve a function as freighters and transports.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
"...the odds of meeting a 'class ship' are inherently low. Not that such an encounter would be impossible, not at all. But the rarity of such an event should warrant some sort of an on-air comment. In the case of the Antares, we get none, whereas in the case of, say, the Prometheus or the Defiant, we got plenty."
Bradbury. Galaxy.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique. Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class, we can assume until contradicted by onscreen evidence that this is the class ship. Since the TNG Hermes is listed as Antares Class, we can also assume that this is of the same class.
My take on it is the same as someone mentioned earlier. There's every reason to believe there's no TOS-styled ships still running around, they were probably refit the way the Constitutions and possibly Mirandas were.
The TNG Hermes, to me would have a refit Constitution saucer. A refit Antares Class may have been the partial hull we saw at Wolf 359, or even better, the crashed Olympia may have been Antares Class. Just a thought.
quote:Since the Encyclopedia says that the Antares from TOS is Antares Class
But the Encyclopedia doesn't say that. In the shiplist, the Antares is listed without class. The Encyclopedia just speculates that the Antares was the prototype.
quote:Starfleet doesn't reuse ship class names. Each one is unique.
And what's your point? You aren't suggesting that there can't be a TOS Antares of the XYZ-class AND another Antares of the Antares-class, are you?
BTW: Could you please check your PMs?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
