posted
No, you are wrong... I see a couple French ones in there.
quote:Originally posted by Brian Whisenhunt: Amazing how all the vessels are named after Earth ships.
Why not an NCC-1999 U.S.S. G'zzzz-Ni'vtz
-------------------- Like A Bat Out Of Hell...
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i personally don't thoink theres any escaping the Okuda-Jein system, deploirable as it might be, but its a necessary evil due to the NCC-1017 mistake.. at this point i follow the 'canon' Jein/Okuda & ST:6 material but try to leave as much of the Franz Joseph and FASA material in place, whenever possible. its wierd ill tell you that.
and were not going to be settling this issue anytime soon...
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't know what Jonah's reasons are but they could include the following:
1. Too many heavy cruisers.
2. Timeframe, the Enterprise was only fully refitted to Bonhomme Richard specs at the start of TOS (the changes between the two pilot versions and the series version reflect a gradual refitting). Which suggest that the Achernar specification didn't yet exist. She was then refitted to the Enterprise specs less then ten years later. Not a lot of time to build all 68 vessels of the Achernar class.
3. The Defiant was shown to be identical to the Enterprise and hence wasn't a member of the Achernar class. But NCC-1764 is slap bang in the middle of the Achernar range.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies onl, and 1800 registries are for Mirandas only (although looking now that would cause more problems for the Tikopai than the Achernar)
i see no problem with the dozen plus connies that were referenced in TOS and the movies/Okudaic literature existing, and then the remaining ships that probably didnt exist (Achernars and Tikopais) being built after the 'twelve like it' comment.. and in much more limited numbers than FJ implied (Guenther's SotSF, the unofficial continuation of FJ's work, also posits that the majority of the Achernars and Tikopais were cancelled -- the Achernar registrys disappeared after NCC-1744 or so {although i think they couldve just made them light cruisers or frigates with the same names/regs} and the Tikopai registries end right before many of the Miranda & SotSF Enterprise-type registries start)
its not like there isnt a version of the 2260s Starfleet that could support that many cruisers.. its possible that, from 2245 to 2265 (for the 12 like it comment) that SF had only 12-20 connies and then another {older or smaller} class of cruiser filling out the rest of the Fleet's needs for that type of ship, then after 2265 that class or classes were being phased out, and replaced with newer Connnie-type cruisers like the dozen or so Achernar subclass, the handful of Endeavour subclass, and then a decade later supplemented by the Tikopai and Enterprise subclasses, until the Connie family was the most numerous cruiser type vessel.. then, another two decades later, the connies begin to get phased out in favor of the Excelsiors in the same kind of situation (by 2290 there were probably less than 12 Excelsiors and dozens of Connies of various series, but by 10 or 20 years later there were probably more than 12 Excelsiors and no more Connies except in support roles (unless they really did an aggressive decommissioning program)..
just because it was only 12 connies in 2265 doesnt mean that there were ALWAYS 12 connies.. i once wrote a projected fleet number that had an initial buildup to 15 or 20 vessels in the 2250s, with a few (like the ill fated Farragut and some others from fandom) being taken out of service before 2265, when there were 12, and then another increase through the 2270s for all the FJ variants that we all love so much (lots of them replacing the many many ships that were cannon fodder during TOS)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Capped in Mic: yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies only
Well, yeah that's the heart of the Jefferies system. There can only be one 17th class of cruisers, can't there?
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Capped in Mic: yuck.. the Jefferies kids seem to think that 1700 registries are for connies only
Well, yeah that's the heart of the Jefferies system. There can only be one 17th class of cruisers, can't there?
Yes it is, but it does not work after TOS. It would mean that the Avenger/Miranda Class is the 18th class, the Oberth is the 6th Class, whatever the Class Revere is that would be the 5th Class, The Columbia should be a part of the Oberth Class, the Excelsior is the 20th ship class, and whatever the Entente's class is that would be the 21st Class.
Well, from FJ and others that the Revere is a Hermes, Columbia is a Cygnus, and the Entente is a Federation
Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
That's exactly what Jonah's been saying - for him the Jeffries system applies throughout TOS but the Okuda system comes into play around the time of the later movies.
The various scouts (Revere, Columbia, Grissom) need theire registries changing because NCC only applies to cruisers not scouts.
Now, personally I use the FJ system and apply NCC to all ships, assign registries in blocks but permit the blocks to be smaller than 100 and start with any old number. But I also switch over to the Okuda system sometime in the late 2280s/early 2290s.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I also mention a few problematic prefix/registry/class issues due to lack of knowledge or understanding of Jeffries' system on the part(s) of FJ the filmmakers. There are three biggies in the arena before Okuda came along:
Revere and Columbia -- If they're Scouts, they should have a different prefix to reflect it -- say NSS (doubled letters indicating Starfleet vessels). The Hermes class was big enough, though, to be a Light Cruiser, so the 'NCC' might work for them. However, it requires doing something with FJ's registries and the line from the film either way.
Grissom -- Same issue. If it's a Scout, it should have a different prefix (and potentially a different 'block' number than the Hermes/Cygnus design). If, however, this is after the changeover (which I place in 2280, because of the Hathaway), then the prefix is fine, but the number needs to be changed to something >2500.
With Okuda coming into the mix, we get a few more, mostly from his work in Star Trek VI:
Jenolan -- NCC-2010 is happily within the Excelsior block. A quick fix would be to change the registry to 2510 or something...
Constellation -- Going with the 'prototype = xx00' system, the Constellation would have to be NX-1900, not NX-1974. And with the Hathaway being launched six years before, the odds of the class lead ship still being on deep space trials are fairly small...
Eagle -- Cannot be a Constitution with that registry. Adding a '1' to the front makes it a Constellation. Last Unicorn Games gave us the Ranger class at the 900 block. I think this is a good design, and would work. If that Eagle was destroyed, a later Constitution- or Enterprise-class ship could be built and that could be what's on the chart -- with a new registry number.
Various other ships -- The Scovil, Ahwahnee, Challenger, Emden, Helin, Endeavour, Korolev, and Springfield all need their clases changed. And the rest of the Constitutions listed need their registries un-retconned.
FWIW, I also not only permit blocks smaller than a hundred ships, I consider it almost essential, and indeed consider the growing trend of large, expensive Cruisers with small productions runs -- and all the unused hull numbers as a consequence -- the reason Starfleet changed over to the new registry system.
Oh, and the "dozen liker her" line... Hang on a sec -- I'm going to post another copy of my Constitution list that shows which ones were lost or destroyed. The class' high attrition rate would see only between a dozen and a score of ships active at any given time prior to TMP.
Lastly, on the subject of other "lesser" Cruisers filling in between the big boys, that's also implicit in the extrapolated Jeffries system I've reconstructed. By the time we get to TOS, the Constitution class has been around for between twenty and forty years depending on who you talk to. Even though they're still a major investment, the previous class -- the Baton Rouges -- are much easier and cheaper to build, and thus we see their registries climb to at least 1697 by the late first season. The ubiquitous Miranda class also looks to be a Cruiser slightly smaller and much cheaper than the Constitution and Enterprise classes, and thus we have registries there going up to 1895 with the Endeavour, plus all those that came after the changeover. Compared to this, we have only ~65 Constitution, ~45 Enterprises, and ~25 Federations. And while ~50 Excelsiors were ordered in the initial procurement, only a smattering were finished by the turn of the century. You've got to have smaller and cheaper Cruisers filling in the between spaces...
--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
That's a rough pass. As I said, this is very much a work-in-progress. Expect a final version within a couple weeks that is distinctly different from this list...
--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
Regarding the 1974 Constellation, how's this for an idea:
As the Hathaway was launched 6 years before 1974 was on trials, 1974 cannot be the class ship.
So, 1900 Constellation was the class ship, but it was destroyed.
Starfleet wanted to refit the class slightly - but not enough to have a new class - and launched a new ship, 1974 Constellation, which as it was refitted was experimental, hence the NX.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Another Idea- The Constellation was a pathfinder vessel for San Francisco Fleet Yards. It was decided to fully commission the vessel in later years. I cannot remember what the Tech File said from STTM about the Constellation, herself.
Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
