posted
Okuda has long posited the Nash, and ships like it, to be early/overgrown runabouts. The Jenol!n's bridge supports this (if only as a matter of production convenience) but having the command stations, transporter, and engineering doodads all in the same place. It's entirely possible that ships like these could be atached to large stations and/or ships...
posted
Runabouts would appear to be their own super class. In the first episode of DS9, Commander Sisko says the Enterprise-D has delivered three Runabout Class ships. Later, in "Hippocratic Oath", we learn this particular type of Runabout is Danube Class.
From the above comments, I would guess that transports are related to runabouts and are in the super class family of Runabouts.
posted
Of course if the structure seen on the Jenolen as the Ent-A bridge, is in fact the same thing, that makes the Sydney Class volume-wise, bigger than a Miranda Class. and about as long.
posted
This raises alot of questions. Is this a fifth NCC-2010 shuttle from some station of the Sydney class? Or could it be a just a hull marking typo?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
It's the Jenolen's number, but it would've been taken off and reoriented to make the Nash...why not just make an entirely new number?
The real reason, is probably no one ever thought the model would be seen up close. It was named after Erik Nash, one of the special effects camera guys...not a famous explorer, city, scientist, or other common sources for ship names.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
We are pretty sure the executive shuttle from Star Trek VI and VII don't have anything in common with the Sydney-class treknology-wie (Maybe they aren't even the same model - the Scotty episode was made after TUC but before Generations, and in both movies we saw the executive shuttle variant. And there seem to be other differences. The two may look extremely similar, but the reason could be the same parts used to built both models. Has it ever been confirmed that these are one and the same model? If not we should drop th entire Sydney/exec shuttle relationship.) So the Nash was never supposed to be a "shuttle" or "Runabout", just the average courier ship. There have been other instances for strange shuttle-registries, the NCC-K7 from TAS or the NCC-xxxx from Starbase 1 (FJ's Manual). And ages ago there were those TAS numbers (NCC-G1000 or whetever) that some people (Jackill for example) assigned to the Sydney, too (NCC-S2000 I think). Maybe Starfleet still uses a similar pattern even in the 24th century. The Jenolan was NCC-2010, a normal transporter or scout or whatever. But Nash was just a cargo hauler, maybe not even commissioned directly by Starfleet, and was assigned the NCC-2010-S. The vessel has nothing to do with the Jenolen (I guess there have been an NCC-1000 and an NCC-G1000 at some point, too), and the S indicates it's a spaceliner or something. A variant of the NAR-registries (civilian vessels could use NAR while civilian-run Starfleet vessels use NCC-S). BTW, did I mention that I think the 5 is not a 5 at all but an S?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
When was the last time we saw a Type 6 shuttlecraft dock with DS9 through the pylons? Only starships use the pylons.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
When was the last time we saw a Type 6 shuttlecraft dock with DS9 through the pylons? Only starships use the pylons.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
The Runabout USS Killmequick used the upper docking pylon to dock at Empok Nor, but I know what you mean. Still, those docking ports are really weird pieces of tech. They fit exactly for Starfleet, Klingon, Cardassian and any other Alien-of-the-week-docking-system, you can even dock your ship and leave it from spots where you even have a port (BoP), and they seem to be the same types of ports they also use inside the Runabout hangars. So I guess they could use any of the pylons or ring ports, too. Maybe they are just trying to put the Runabouts out of the way for busy days when most of the docking ports are in use.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
While it's clear that the executive shuttle and the full-sized Sydney are not the same vessel type, according to all backstage sources (Okuda in the Encyclopedia, Sternbach in ST: The Magazine, and the Continuing Mission) it was the TUC shuttle that was modified by Greg Jein into the Jenolan for "Relics" (TNG). I'm not sure just what the deal was with the shuttles in GEN. Maybe there was a duplicate model of the same shuttle, or something.
The NCC-K7 shuttle was from "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9), not from TAS. I don't know what Greg Jein was trying to say with this labeling, but I'm somewhat reluctant to allow that space stations are assigned NCC registries. (Although, it probably wouldn't be that much of a strain to the registry system we've seen if they were.)
The hyphenated character in the Nash's registry is clearly a 5, and can in no way be mistaken for an "S."
I prefer not to speculate on this issue, but I will say that I do not believe the Nash to be in any way "different" from other Sydneys simply because it was seen flying upside-down, and I do not believe that it is supposed to be its own class, and I do not believe that the Sydney is in some way not a "true" ship class and is instead some kind of uber-shuttlecraft. Beyond that, I don't know what to believe.
-MMoM
[ January 05, 2003, 15:41: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Beyond that, I don't know what to believe.
Welcome to the club.
It is obvious that the Generations and TUC shuttles are the same models (nose, engines, the two tractor emitters below the ship), just using a different color scheme. I just thought the impression that these are the same model as the Jenolen was caused by the fact files or magazine (serioulsy, when have they ever been right about something?) by saying "lokk, that's a Runabout just like the Sydney" and drawing the wrong schematic of the NAR-vessel from TUC (compare them; I think many sites will have them). The nose section is curved downwards, not up, like they picture it. The way they drew it, it really looks like Sydney's little sister.
posted
Huh... based on those comparisons, it looks like the modelmakers chopped off the nose and turned it upside-down. Other than that, it appears identical. (From a behind-the-scenes perspective.)
I don't remember the exact dimensions, but I'm pretty sure that the Nash's nose was approximately 3/4 the width of the "notch" that held the docking port. (One of those three notches where the upper and lower pylons met.)
Therefore, the Nash-type transport is likely at least 150 meters long, probably more.
-------------------- “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
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
If the Sydney's nacelles are Constitution-nacelles, the ship is about 240 meters long.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
