posted
I don't know if it has been done before, but I've identified some more ships in the tachyon grid displays from "Redemption, part 2". The ships marked "new" are not mentioned as part of the fleet, however, they are ships that have been seen before (or will be seen in later episodes!). There is no ship with a 4-digit number or a name resembling "Valkyrie".
1) This is the original configuration of the network I have drawn from the TV screen:
2) This is the network without the Excalibur. Note that the Charleston and Sutherland (where the grid is just being disrupted when the display is shown) have changed positions, while the Thomas Paine and one unknown ship try to fill the gap the Excalibur has left. The dialogue says the Hornet and Akagi were supposed to do this. Maybe we have to think three-dimensionally.
I'm not sure if the three missing ships will ever be identified, because they are almost completely covered by the grid lines in the second diagram, and the first one is too small.
Anyway, except for the 2xxxx registry of the Hermes, there seem to be no inconsistencies in the displays.
------------------ "No, thanks. I've had enough. One more cup and I'll jump to warp." (Janeway, asked if she would like some coffee in "Once upon a Time") www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/
posted
During the course of the episode, the number of ships was said to be 22. I do not know the location of the other 5 ships.
Below is a list of ships from the new encyclopedia which had a picture of the tachyon web- 1. USS Akagi NCC-62158 2. USS Ahwahnee NCC-71620 3. USS Ajax NCC-11574 4. USS Aries NCC-45167 5. USS Charleston NCC-42285 6. USS Endeavor NCC-71805 7. USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D 8. USS Excalibur NCC-26517 9. USS Goddard NCC-59621 10. USS Hermes NCC-10376 11. USS Hood NCC-42296 12. USS Hornet NCC-45231 13. USS Merrimack NCC-61827 14. USS Sutherland NCC-72015 15. USS Thomas Paine NCC-65530 16. USS Tian Nan Men NCC-21382 17. USS Trieste NCC-37124
5 Additional Ship- 1. USS Valkyrie NCC-2590 (the registry can be seen briefly as the ship passes by. At Pedro's site, there is the view of the USS Valkyrie. The last digit appears to be shaped like a zero.) The other four are unknown
[This message was edited by Trinculo on June 07, 1999.]
posted
Then it was probably the Hathaway, and was not re-labeled at all. I guess this was the last appearance of the a Constellation class ship, maybe the Valkyrie was only labeled for the exhibition.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Ooh, cool. . . *has a great time flicking between the two images in different windows* 8)
Remind me - how many actual ships did we see in the ep? I don't recall there being a lot. . .
------------------ "I also received an interesting, if some-what perplexing, note from a 13-year-old lad who asked if I "had a clue." I fear I cannot adequately answer, as I am not aware of any immediate clues at hand; but that is not to say there are none present." - T. Herman Zweibel
posted
The following ships were seen in the episode: USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D USS Excalibur NCC-26517 USS Sutherland NCC-72015 USS Valkyrie NCC-2590 (I am accepting this identification. BTW, I sent a letter to Shadow. He replied that the identification of the Constellation Class ship couldn't be made. Has he gotten a bigger tv?)
IP: Logged
posted
Thing is, the Constellation seen in the exterior VFX sequence was upside-down, and the only other upside-down Constellation was the Valkyrie, and it had labels positioned that way to prove it... If they relabeled and flipped the model at some point, isn't just before it appeared onscreen upside-down a good time?
------------------ "A Star Wars picture that preaches against greed is a little like Bill Clinton in the pulpit for a chastity-begins-at-home campaign."
-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
posted
As a matter of fact, I did get a larger TV. But I hadn't really checked before...I noticed the registry by accident. Anyway, the last number was definitely a 3.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ "Let's get those missiles ready to destroy the universe!" - TMBG
A reprint of the Okudagram of the grid was printed in the Star Trek Science Logs (from Pocket about a year ago). If I was home then I could pull out the book and look up the page number.
------------------ -=/\=- Captain Stark http://beam.to/readyroom
"The man on the top walks a lonely path. The chain of command is often a noose." Dr. Leonard McCoy --Obsession, Stardate: 3619.2
posted
I couldn't read any part of the Constellation class registry. The Valkyrie being the most recent labeling, I might accept it was supposed to be the Valkyrie, but strong evidence is missing.
The Aries is between the Hermes and the Enterprise, the Goddard between the Triese and the Hermes.
I don't like the idea that the same ships appear again and again in TNG, while there are thousands of them in DS9.
posted
The increase in the size of Starfleet is due to the demands placed upon the stories by the writers. The proportions of the Federation and the Starfleet are being exagerrated to the level of unbelievibilty for me. They are almost comical in scope. I chalk this up to the changing nature of the stories being made for Star Trek and a differing perception of the UFP and Starfleet.
IP: Logged
posted
The situation that there's no other starship in sector 001 but the Enterprise is even more comical.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
I think the fleet idea is a good explanation of why the same ships reappear in TNG - after all, the E-D wasn't going that far afield. Which also explains why there were at least a dozen ships classes we never saw.
------------------ "I also received an interesting, if some-what perplexing, note from a 13-year-old lad who asked if I "had a clue." I fear I cannot adequately answer, as I am not aware of any immediate clues at hand; but that is not to say there are none present." - T. Herman Zweibel
But I hadn't really checked before...I noticed the registry by accident. Anyway, the last number was definitely a 3.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
