posted
Let us take an example. In the first encyclopedia, the USS Grissom mentioned in "The Most Toys" was an Oberth Class Scout with the registry of NCC-59314. For subsequent editions, the USS Grissom was an Excelsior Class Explorer with the registry NCC-42857.
I see no difficulty in incorporating an Oberth Class Scout with the registry of NCC-59314 into my list. Though the name is wrong, the rest of the data for this ship may be correct. Other ships I have considered are:
1. Daedalus Class Starship, NCC-235 2. Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser, NCC-1831 3. Miranda Class Medium Cruiser, NCC-1937 4. Renaissance Class Starship, NCC-10523 5. Oberth Class Scout, NCC-59314 6. Oberth Class Scout, NCC-59983
We are working from Mr. Okuda's thinking on the matter. He may corrected certain datum to match more closely the canon facts for an individual ship; however, I don't see how this can invalidate the datum listed above.
I hope this clears the matter a little more.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
In case you still don't understand what he's saying, Griff, I'll elaborate some more.
In order to get his point, you need to be familiar with the original (1994) edition of Mike and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia. It contained several datapoints that were different from those in the later (1997, 1999) editions of the book:
As mentioned, the second U.S.S. Grissom is listed as an Oberth-class vessel with a registry of NCC-59314. (Only in the shiplist, however. The main entry for the vessel gave the familiar Excelsior designation and NCC-42857.)
The U.S.S. Hornet was listed with a registry number of NCC-10523 rather than the correct NCC-45231. (Again, shiplist only. The main entry gave correct number.)
The reverse is true of the U.S.S. Saratoga from TVH, which is listed as the correct NCC-1867 in the shiplist and the erroneous NCC-1937 in the main entry. (This error, unlike most of the others, was not corrected later and survived through the rest of the book's incarnations.)
Another error that has persisted is the listing of the U.S.S. Intrepid as NCC-1831 rather than the correct NCC-1631.
The U.S.S. Crazy Horse was listed as a Cheyenne-class vessel rather than an Excelsior.
The later editions generated a few errors as well:
The U.S.S. Carolina is listed in places as both NCC-189 and NCC-235, although arguably neither one is "correct" given that the ship is most likely not a Daedalus-class vessel as the book claims.
The U.S.S. Raman is listed as NCC-59983 rather than the correct NCC-29487.
The U.S.S. Biko is listed in the shiplist as an Olympic-class vessel, although this is obviously just a typo for "Oberth."
Personally, I don't think I agree with newark here. These erroneous datapoints are simply that---errors. OTOH, if you really think about it, it's obvious that there must have been vessels with those numbers at some point. I mean, think about it this way: The very fact that the U.S.S. Sao Paulo has a registry of NCC-75633 implies that there have been ships with NCCs 01 through 75632. So of course there have been NCCs 235, 1831, 1937, 10253, 59314, and 59983. However, we don't list them on our shiplists because they've never been seen or mentioned on the show, just as we don't list all the other numbers that we all *know* must have existed.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Perhaps you could give the registry number NX-74913 to the Prometheus-class U.S.S. Garuda, which was mentioned in a Deep Space 9 episode script but never seen on film or mentioned in the filmed dialog?
I realize you were just trying to make a point, and I like the reasoning of your post, but I have to be slightly nitpicky here and point out that the Garuda is called a "Prometheus-class ship" in the script, it is obvious from the "(stock from 'Second Sight')" clarification that the author meant a Nebula-class vessel, as he was simply referring to the class of vessel that the U.S.S. Prometheus NCC-71201 was.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The main reason I disagree with the "number assigned before construction" theory concerning the Prometheus is that we know the registry number of USS Galaxy and its successors, which are very close.
This is not consistent with an extremely long development period for the Galaxy Class, and would suggest a design/construction/testing time for the Galaxy of about 2 weeks.
Oh, and I'm not too happy with even reading the official ST website, as it seems to suggest that the prototype for the Intrepid Class was an Excelsior.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Then again, it could be that Starfleet never built a prototype for the Galaxy class. Not in the sense of "a ship built before the series production vessels to see if series production is viable".
I mean, prototypes for ships are prohibitively expensive in the real world. Either you build the ship class, or then you don't. There's no "Let's try with one, and see if we like it" to it.
Sure, it often pays to order just a limited number of ships first, and then give thumbs up for a second batch if everything goes fine. But it's not worth the while to create a shipbuilding apparatus for just one prototype, and then discard it when the prototype fails, or even let it idle while the prototype is undergoing tests. When the first ship is launched, the keel for the second should be laid immediately.
Aircraft can be prototyped. Even though they, too, often require a specific "building apparatus" to be created, the expenses of creating a dud plane and the associated dud apparatus are far less than those of creating a ship that nobody wants.
posted
In the real world, for a national government that controls a small portion of a single planet, maybe it is prohibitive.
However, for an interstellar federation spanning hundreds of member planets and thousands of colonies, and with no real budgetary constraints, attempting to build a flagship class planned to be in service for decades, it would seem to be more sensible.
And we have seen prototypes, like the Defiant, Excelsior, and even NX-01.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Yet these vessels seem to have gotten successors pretty rapidly after the class ship was launched, NCC-wise and (apart perhaps for the Excelsior, if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there) timeline-wise.
The Defiant would have the best excuse for being an experimental one-off originally, of course: she's so tiny she can afford to be a dud.
OTOH, for an organization that has all the time and money it needs for testing, Starfleet seems pretty aimless in its procurement policy. Why are there dozens of ship classes that appear identical in role and equipment?
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: In case you still don't understand what he's saying, Griff, I'll elaborate some more.
In order to get his point, you need to be familiar with the original (1994) edition of Mike and Denise Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia. It contained several datapoints that were different from those in the later (1997, 1999) editions of the book: >SNIKT!<
Ah! OK Thanks, MMoM! I appreciate the clarification, as I was indeed lost as to what newark was saying.
I've got the 1994 printing of STE, tho haven't looked at it in forever. W/your bring those errors up, I do now recall seeing several of those errors/revisions when I first got the hardback version in '98(?) tho forgot about them.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Yet these vessels seem to have gotten successors pretty rapidly after the class ship was launched, NCC-wise and (apart perhaps for the Excelsior, if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there) timeline-wise.
>SNIP!<
Huh? Back up a minute, please. "if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there"?!?
When was this ever mentioned? I've seen several screen caps of the ST:III Spacedock scene that shows one of the Excelsior prototype models in the background. However, the one shown is obviously not Excelsior class ship. I've never heard any mention of any additional ships of that class showing in ST:IV, tho. Got access to some screen caps?
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
To come back to those prefixes, if I remember correctly, the AR numbers for Aeroshuttles were production numbers, and not registries. I assume the Aeroshuttles are numbered like other shuttles.
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Huh? Back up a minute, please. "if we don't accept the ST4 spacedock scenes as proof that there were multiple Excelsiors there"?!?
When was this ever mentioned? I've seen several screen caps of the ST:III Spacedock scene that shows one of the Excelsior prototype models in the background. However, the one shown is obviously not Excelsior class ship. I've never heard any mention of any additional ships of that class showing in ST:IV, tho. Got access to some screen caps?
Well apparently some fanboy went through the TSFS (or was it TVH?) scenes and decided that one ship couldn't account for all the different angles we saw the Excelsior from in the film. SO they reasoned that there must have been at least TWO Excelsiors in SpaceDock at the time...
Personally, I think this is complete bunk, but that's just me.
Oh, and BTW, it's actually this study model of the Enterprise as re-designed by Ralph McQuarrie for the planned Star Trek film Planet of the Titans back in the 70s (this was before they decided to do a second series, Star Trek: Phase II, which would ironically later get turned back into The Motion Picture) that appears in the background in STIII.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Whoa! I've been around the block a few times but never heard of this before!
quote:The Excelsior
It seems perfectly reasonable for the Excelsior to be a prototype for such a long period of time. The movies III-V are only spaced-out (haha-get it?) by a couple years at most. The Excelsior was experimenting with a crazy new warp engine platform altogether, probably involoving a hellacious amount of time and resources and I am more than sure SF ran every test in the book on her 5 or 6 times before they declared her a dud. For that matter even the NX-01 is beginning its 3rd year as 'the one and only' of its kind, as it too is a radical step up from its predecessors.
Also, this wacky 'multiple Excelsior theory' is completely cow-udder bullshit. A superb example of what the world was like before internet porn!
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
The McQuarrie Enterprises are tres sexy, IMO
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Well apparently some fanboy went through the TSFS (or was it TVH?) scenes and decided that one ship couldn't account for all the different angles we saw the Excelsior from in the film. SO they reasoned that there must have been at least TWO Excelsiors in SpaceDock at the time...
Personally, I think this is complete bunk, but that's just me.
Sounds like it to me, as well.
quote:Oh, and BTW, it's actually this study model of the Enterprise as re-designed by Ralph McQuarrie for the planned Star Trek film Planet of the Titans back in the 70s (this was before they decided to do a second series, Star Trek: Phase II, which would ironically later get turned back into The Motion Picture) that appears in the background in STIII.
Same ship seen in this vidcap from ST:III. I initially forgot that I had been in a discussion at another forum and someone there had vidcap capabilities, but no host for the pic, so I volunteered, posted it on 5 Nov, 2002, and still have the image on my AOL servers. Goes along nicely w/my philosphy of "never throw anything away!"
Anyhow, this image was lightening in Adobe PhotoDeluxe so that you can more clearly see that this is the McQuarrie design you mention above. Guess that makes it canon, too, huh...? At least, more canon than the "two Excelsiors idea" floated in the theory you mention above.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, we had a discussion on that ship in Spacedock too as well. It was before you came here, though I don't recall when he had it. That other forum could have had that discussion before one of us here independently found out about it. Initially we all thought it was a doctored-up pic until we checked our tapes and DVDs and confirmed it was real. Incidentally, I think it was around the same time we had our discussion on that freighter/ship in Spacedock as well.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
PRE-2161 New United Nations registry. POST-2161 Used for ships formerly employed in Starfleet. This includes 'SD-103'. When I looked closely at the ventral side of the ship, I noticed the Starfleet pennant.
Where? All I can see on the underside of the SD1-03 shuttle are three red stripes. Plus the side of the shuttle clearly displays the Federation seal and the words "UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS", no mention or hint of Starfleet service from what I can see.
I stand by my assertion that NAR is simply a registry code for civilian ships from earth or just the Sol System in general. It's the only consistent explanation.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
