quote:Ooh...what sort of "internal memos"? Is this something you've had access to or just heard about it second hand? Is there any other useful info on registries, names, or classes that could be gleaned from such sources?
Mostly just what you've seen in The Making of Star Trek. Those memos, by the way, are the source of most of FJ's ships before the "Achernar" cutoff, from where the production staff (notably D.C. Fontana) are tossing potential future Constitutions into the collective pool.
quote:I agree with what you're saying, and am well acquainted with Mr. Jefferies' intended registry system. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, that registry system never really came to fruition, and is now most certainly quite defunct.
I agree. But while it never came to fruition, the framework is still there and -- non-canon Okudaic speculation aside -- still eminently available for application to the TOS/TAS/TMP period with (as I said) very few retcons needed.
quote:(That's one thing you can blame Franz Joseph for to a great extent, although it was actually "The Doomsday Machine" that cast the first wrench into the works.)
Agree on "The Doomsday Machine". It's a pity the VFX crews didn't work with the Art Department in those days... But FJ had remarkably little impact except in fandom circles, and hate to say it, but I don't hold anyone who doesn't research what they are contributing to in very high regard. The pretty pictures are great, but I tend to ignore much of the FJ-derived fluff and registration.
I keep FJ's pre-Achernar list very much intact, as well as his Federation list. I muck around a bit with the Hermes and Saladin lists. Indeed, I've been cudgeling my brain on what to do with those classes for years.
quote:There is absolutely no way that Jefferies' proposed system can be applied given what we've seen in canon Trek in the ensuing 30 years.
I don't know about that. Very little has still been done with the TOS era since that series wrapped. When I say very little retconning is needed to have Jeffries' system switch into Okuda's in the 2280s, I'm not making idle projections. I'll post the full list of examples I've gathered over in the Creativity section tomorrow.
quote:Yes, but even while it would fit nicely into the range, there's no reason to assume it is a Connie. In fact, it was lifted directly from FJ's Star Fleet Technical Manual, which lists the ship as a Bonhomme Richard-class vessel. (Which, arguably, could be a variant of the Constitution-class, but isn't necessarily---and I am of the utmost reluctance to accept the fandom notion of subclasses or ships being "upgraded" to new classes...[ick!].)
*heh* I know, "No-Enterprise-Class Boy". I've maintained for a looooooong time that everything from the version seen in "The Cage" to FJ's Achernar is the Constitution class. From the drastic reworking she got in her 2270 refit, I do agree with Andy Probert that the Enterprise started a new class.
For a subclass I demand a bit more deviation from the base template than eliminating the spikes on the nacelle endcaps. The Miranda family is the best canon example of a design and her subclasses. Going by Matt's system as I do, I put the Miranda at NCC-1800, the Soyuz subclass at NCC-1840, and the Avenger subclass (with the rollbar) at NCC-1860. Recent caps from "Cause and Effect" have made me put that project on hold, though, because of the '1941' seen on both bottom and top, contrary to what I'd read.
quote:Agreed...sort of. You can't undo what TNG showed with registry numbers---that they are, at most, assigned in a roughly sequential order without regard to class or vessel type.
Don't intend to. It works with all that has come since '87, and I have no problem with it.
quote:One can't very well claim (IMO) that it was somehow different in the TOS era, even if the original intent at the time the first series was being produced was just that.
Why not? 99% of Okuda's mucking in that era is confined to unreadable screen graphics and encyclopedaic speculation.
quote:There comes a point (and it was reached long, long ago) when it becomes impossible to try to uphold/reconcile something that is universally ignored by all the other series.
It is ignored by all other series, but for the most part not contradicted. I promise I'll show examples tomorrow in that post to Creativity...
quote:The highest one is the 1[6|8]31 which is shown right at 100%, and then there's a gap, and another small bar, which presumably denotes completion, or something.
Hrm. So the Enterprise -- which just arrived -- is already at 84% completion? Man, the Constitution must have been mangled...!
And regarding my saying Starfleet switched over in the mid-2280s...
quote:Not necessarily... for one thing, there's the Reliant.
So? NCC-1800 -- next Starship (Heavy Cruiser by the time we get to TWOK) class after Constitution.
quote:Also, there were no names on that big wall chart, were there? If you use Jefferies' system, and the fact that the Commodore pointed to the number NCC-1831 while referring to the Intrepid, that means that the Intrepid should be a Miranda-class starship!
Did he? Man, it's been too long since I watched that ep. Would someone who has it at hand be able to cap him pointing? Is there any way he could be pointing one above or below?
And lastly (*whew*), regarding the "78 years later thing", that's always been one of my primary data points. Thus I have narrowed TWOK, TSFS, and TVH down to all taking place from early 2286 to the end of TVH taking place at the tail end of that year.
Fandom places Kirk's birthday at March 22nd. Where is this from? Shortly after that, at the end of the Spring semester (or whatever), is the training cruise. Factor in a few weeks for stuff to happen before Kirk's log entry at the beginning of TSFS, and we're getting close to midsummer. Three months later they leave Vulcan to face the music. And I'm one of those wierdos that thinks there's at least a week between their splashdown and the sentencing, and a little bit more time (on the order of hours or days) between that and the trip to the 1701-A. So where doea that leave us? October, 2286?
--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
Incidentally, if that smallish silhouette swooping down from above on the second page is the Eagle, I'd like to point out that both the silhouette and the registry fit Last Unicorn Games' Ranger.
--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
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: And lastly (*whew*), regarding the "78 years later thing", that's always been one of my primary data points. Thus I have narrowed TWOK, TSFS, and TVH down to all taking place from early 2286 to the end of TVH taking place at the tail end of that year.
But, since TNG starts in 2363, wouldn't TVH be in 2285?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
TNG started in 2364, as evidenced by "The Neutral Zone" and the fact that Okuda maintains that his interpretation of the stardate systems works so that "Encounter at Farpoint" was within the same year as "The Neural Zone".. keep in mind, it is this S1 TNG data point which is retroactively skewing the TOS movie dates.. basically, they knew that TWOK was shortly after 2283, based on the infamous Ale joke, they also knew that TWOK had to be as early as possible, to explain the '15 years' line.. but because the 2364 date was devised in an incorrect manner, they dragged TVH, TSFS and TWOK forward accordingly.
Note that if the date had not been established in "The Neutral Zone", that fifteen years after "Space Seed" would place TWOK in 2281, and I would tentatively say 2283 or 4 just to make the Ale joke work right (for a '15 year' dialogue reference, i'm willing to give 16-17, because when i say fifteen years i round and generalize like that), that they put a date on it to show it had been aged a little over a year, and 'taken a little while to ferment'.. ha ha.. TSFS would take place within the same year since it was only a few days out from Earth where they faced Khan, and i'm sure that the personnell transfers of Reliant's crew and the Grissom rendezvous, and the limp home on low engines couldnt have taken much more than a month or two, given that they were only a little cruise out of Earth in the first place. TVH would be within the same year or in the next year, being 6 months after TSFS..
so the 'correct' interpretation would've/could've looked something like this (2264)2265-2270 - Five Year Mission 2283 - Wrath of Khan (FYM+15), The Search for Spock (TWOK+1-2mo) 2284 - The Voyage Home (TWOK+6mo) 2362 - TNG S1 (TVH+78)
but of course, they couldnt use this, because the TNG date was established early on as 2364, so they felt it necessary to abide by that and place TVH in 2286. (which i don't know why they so closely stuck to the '78yr' reference.. it wasnt even filmed canon, it was background info, and it wasn't even specific.. 78 years after the time of Kirk.. could have meant 78 years after TOS S1, or it couldve meant 78 years after his last command in TUC) so now we are stuck with TWOK being way too late, and the rest of the movies following suit... just a quick note, theoretically is that why they 'bumped' the FYM forward with the Q2 reference.. they knew they put too much time between TOS and TWOK and are now trying to fix it by making TOS to have happened later?
BTW, I'm noticing a lot more fandom references that more correctly interpreted the timespan before TWOK.. i was reading the Peter David "Retrospect" comic, which shows Peter Preston's funeral after TWOK, then cuts to 18 months before TMP with the segue '11 years earlier'.. obviously the pre-Okuda license writers didnt feel it necessary to fuck up the dates as much as Okuda did..
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
"Hrm. So the Enterprise -- which just arrived -- is already at 84% completion? Man, the Constitution must have been mangled...!"
Not necessarily. You don't know that those indicators show the status of the entire ship overall. If the Enterprise's work order says "fix ion pod ejector", and it's already in 85% working order, they can say the job is 85% complete. The Constitution may have a work order consisting of a list of twenty little things to do, but only two of them have been done.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Akira: I think the operation Ret. Poster has 4 excelsiors 1 Connie and 1 oberth. Not countion the far right side that i reallyt cant tell.
I kinda Skewed these in photoshop so there dirct view hope these help
There's no Oberth there. The small ones are Connies and Mirandas, the larger ones are Excelsiors. Keep in mind the distortion makes things look a little funny.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm still not 100% convinced that one of those smaller silhouettes isn't an oberth and I dare say that I won't be until I get a much closer and clearer view of the charts, however while the presence of an Oberth is still possible it does look like it could well be another Miranda. In the mean time, for the sake of reference and comparisons here is what the silhouettes of the classes in question should look like. These are scaled more or less correctly but we can't be sure that the same is true of the silhouettes on the OR charts.
posted
And keep in mind, the farther away they are from the screen, and depending on the perspective of the chart (which can't be more than superficially corrected by photoshopping) and angle that the silhouettes are pointing at, details like the Connie's spindly hull and nacelles virtually disappear, making it almost indistinguishable from the Miranda.
I know that it's the fashionable thing to do these days to try and refute what's written in the Encyclopedia, but this is one thing I think we can trust Okuda on. He's the one who made the chart, and he specifically remembered associating the Eagle and Endeavour names and regs with Connie silhouettes. (In fact, those seem to be the only two definite name-number-class associations he does remember from the chart, as he didn't include any of the other names in the Encyclopedia, so he must have been fairly sure of them to list them in the book.)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Penny Juday (in charge of the Star Trek archive) might know, if they have that bloody chart somewhere.
Just thinking out loud. Most Oberth names have something to do with astronomy/spaceflight (Grissom, Oberth, Cochrane, Copernicus, Tsiolkovsky). Eagle would fit nicely into this scheme. Moreover, 956 is a perfect number for an Oberth-class vessel.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Just thinking out loud. Most Oberth names have something to do with astronomy/spaceflight (Grissom, Oberth, Cochrane, Copernicus, Tsiolkovsky). Eagle would fit nicely into this scheme. Moreover, 956 is a perfect number for an Oberth-class vessel.
That is precisely why I'm holding out hope that Okuda was mistaken in his certainty, understandable given the volume of material needed for researching the Encyclopaedias.
posted
I'd like to point out that considering the numbers of maps/okudagrams we've seen over the years as having galactic centre as 'north' - that these maps put the Klingons to the 'north east'.
Oh, and look - 0350.1 then 6215.3??
And - that second pic - the 'bottom arrow' that points at a starship - there appear to be two 'excelsior sized' ships - or is that 'bottom' one one of those excelsior 4 nacelle studies? It looks longer.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Guys i am almost Positive that its one connie and 2 Excelsiors on the 0350.1 Chart i have paisted them into it and they fit very well Id say im 85% sure thats what they are
posted
I realize that this was mentioned back a bit in this topic, but where was it mentioned in TMP the reference to the Merrimack as well as its registry?
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Very little has still been done with the TOS era since that series wrapped. When I say very little retconning is needed to have Jeffries' system switch into Okuda's in the 2280s, I'm not making idle projections. I'll post the full list of examples I've gathered over in the Creativity section tomorrow.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I've maintained for a looooooong time that everything from the version seen in "The Cage" to FJ's Achernar is the Constitution class. From the drastic reworking she got in her 2270 refit, I do agree with Andy Probert that the Enterprise started a new class.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The small ones are Connies and Mirandas, the larger ones are Excelsiors. Keep in mind the distortion makes things look a little funny.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
