posted
I was browsing over the dedication plaque of the Tsiolkovsky the other day, & found something interesting. The stardate for the ship's commissioning is 40291.7. This is roughly one year before the Enterprise-D was commissioned.
Now before I continue, I realize that "The Naked Now" was only the second episode of TNG, and that many things were not yet firmly established. However, that still won't taint my argument.
Anyway, although the ship was only a year old as of 2364, she had a registry number of NCC-53911. I believe that this early in the series, Okuda (or whoever made the plaque; presumably it was him) believed that the highest registry numbers of new ships in 2364 would be 5XXXX, not 7XXXX that would be established later.
Therefore, I speculate that Okuda thought that the Oberth class Tsiolkovsky would be a new design, and the new model would accordingly have his information printed on it.
However, as was done in "Encounter at Farpoint" with the Hood, a decision was made to use an old movie model, since TPTB didn't want to spend money building new models if the show got cancelled after one season. Hence, the Grissom was used, without even relabeling the model from its use in STIII. So thanks to the shortsightedness of the producers, we have to accept the fact that Grissom-type ships, although probably a century old, are still being constructed in 2363, and that "Oberth class" now refers to that type of ship.
Would anyone know of any further information which would corroborate my theory? Such as what was printed on the Grissom's plaque (if it even had one)? Chekov referred to a "Scout class" vessel while trying to contect the Grissom, but that could have meant the type of ship, not the actual class name.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The Tsiolkovsky was probably mothballed during a pause in starfleet exploration and re-commisioned much later when the need for a science ship was needed, rather than building a whole new ship.
Hence the 53911 registry number.
Possibly, the ship's original name was re-assigned to a newer ship and starfleet gave the older ship the name of Tsiolkovsky... but kept the registry number to save on expensive hull paint. Did the model really say "Tsiolkovsky" on the hull? That name would have circled the entire saucer!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm... Time to start a "design the realOberth" thread over in the Creativity section...?
That would be not only interesting, but very useful. We could even possibly use Sternbach's proposed design for the Pegasus... I think with the exception of the Vico, all the "Oberths" we saw in TNG were supposed to be some other ship -- the Tsiolkovski, the Biko, the Pegasus...
--Jonah
P.S. So would we re-adopt Glenn or Sagan from fandom...?
-------------------- "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
I don't see a problem with that design being used for over a century. It's probably a very effective ship for the kinds of things it's meant to do. They look like very mission specific ships though. Not alot of room for variable mission equipment, so the ships are either built for a specific mission type or have to be refitted.
posted
I don't see why it couldn't be a long-held design either. Grissom had only a three-digit registry and it looked pretty advanced for its time.
It may be an updated version for which there was a similarly shaped TOS predecessor. That might be cool to design!
More than one shipyard cranks out starships, so the Tsiolkovsky's registry could probably be explained somehow that way. NCCs aren't strictly chonoligical, although that's the major trend.
posted
I might be remembering this wrong, but doesn't the Art Of Star Trek suggest that originally, they were going to use a painting for the Naked Now, and Probert drew up a nice big picture based on what would become the Ambassador-class? That would explain the registry. Although not the date, but considering that at that point in the series, the "4" at the beginning of the stardate was there for the not-overly scientific reason of "It's the 24th century", I don't think there was too much thinking going on.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the popular consensus on the 5 digit registries on TOS/Movie era ships is that they were built in later series.. perhaps the 5xxxx Oberths were the last ones ever built, around the 2340s/50s. [EDIT -- of course, the 5xxxx registry comes from the plaque which also lists the commissioning stardate in 2363.. yuk!]
the FASA game actually postulated this, probably the only sensible fact included in the TNG Officer's Manual (they even provided a new class name for the reoutfitted 24th century variant, Sagan-class vs the old Gagarin-class)
BTW, i think the Oberth might just be the ship with the most different names.. Oberth from Okuda and TNG, Gagarin from FASA, Sagan from FASA TNG, Komarov from SotSF, Garneau and Glenn from fandom
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Also Shepard from another set of fandom blueprints.
-------------------- "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 PsyLiam: I might be remembering this wrong, but doesn't the Art Of Star Trek suggest that originally, they were going to use a painting for the Naked Now, and Probert drew up a nice big picture based on what would become the Ambassador-class? That would explain the registry.
I always thought that painting was meant to be a matte to represent the USS Horatio not seen in "Conspiracy".
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
just thought of something.. what if Tsiolkovski was built with a 5xxxx number in the 2340s/50s series that should be the end of the Oberths, was put into civilian use and then recommissioned to Starfleet on the 40xxx 2363 stardate?
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis: Also Shepard from another set of fandom blueprints.
i wonder if this is cause enough to put the ST:IV Shepard as an Oberth? the name fits
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:was put into civilian use and then recommissioned to Starfleet on the 40xxx 2363 stardate?
Could explain why Picard referred to the ship as "S.S. Tsiolkovsky".
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I meant that Picard just forgot for a moment about the fact that the Tsiolkovsky was recommissioned as a Starfleet vessel a year ago.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Jeez, people. If you've seen that painting from Probert's site, you could at least have read the caption. He created it to be the Hood, for the shot in "Encounter at Farpoint" where the two ships rendezvous over Deneb IV. Then the producers decided they wanted to go with a model instead.
--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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
