posted
I'll be the first to admit that from a continuity standpoint, the Charlie-X Antares being the class prototype for the Hermes is a little convenient. However, if you look at it from another perspective, is it such a huge coincidence that an old Surveyor that crossed paths with the old E-Nil ONCE was the first in a class that included a late ship built late in the run (early 24thC) that would cross paths with another Enterprise about a century after the original Antares was destroyed? In the history of Trek there are a great many events that are even greater coincidences than this, if indeed it even qualifies as coincidence. For instance, the fact that Scotty just happens to be found by the Enterprise or that Cochrane encounters both Picard and Kirk's crew? Or that just about every time traveller from the 23rd & 24th Century that we've seen has ended up on 20th Century earth? Or that ships such as Bozeman or Hood keep cropping up in the company of the Enterprise of the day? Or that Kang, Kor and Koloth just happen to be the main Klingon adversaries in TOS and also turn up later together on DS9? Or that Khan just happens to be found by Chekov, who is "working for" Kirk's former partner & son? The list goes on and on and on. In the grand scheme of things I think the Antares ranks as a pretty minor coincidence.
As for the uniforms, we've seen numerous instances in TNG, GEN & DS9 where more than one uniform is in use at the same time and for a while in DS9 it looked like they were making a clear distinction between Starship and Starbase uniforms. So I have no problem with the crew of a Starfleet operated Surveyor having a slightly different tunic, at least for a time between phasing between the different styles.
As for the "Bajoran" & Xhozah (sp?) Antares-Class I prefer to think of them as non-Federation ships manufactured by a neutral race and sold over the course of several centuries (maybe even millennia) to whom ever wishes to buy.
quote:But do we really want to say that every USS Foobar we see is the flagship of Foobar class?
That goes against the wisdom that whenever you introduce a ship with cool name A, you have the ship be of a class that has a cool name B, so you get two cool names with the price of one...
Of course not, that would be pushing credibility. The reason that I made this choice in the case of the Antares was because it is such a convoluted issue and I chose what I thought and still think was the simplest, clear cut solution. This is a special case and should be treated as the exception as opposed to the rule.
For instance I don't think that the Korolev which appeared in the ST:VI graphics is the prototype for the Goddard, likewise the Springfield and Challenger.
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Here's another question: If there has been, for example, an Excelsior-class in the 23rd century, could there be another ship class of the same name some time in the future? This could be quite confusing, especially if class 2 enters service while class 1 is still active. On the other hand it's not that much more confusing than giving ships names that have already been used or are still in use (think of the Prometheus).
The reason I ask: if we assume that a) the TOS-Antares was a Federation vessel, possibly not commissioned but run by Starfleet like the 24th century "NAR-Oberths" and b) the freighters that were named "Antares-class" were of the same class as the TOS-vessel, just heavily modified and refitted over the years, could it be possible that - at some point after the TOS-Antares and her class ended active service for the fleet and were sold or decomissioned - Starfleet built another class, not related in any way to the TOS-class, and the prototype just happened to be the USS Antares NX-.....? Could there be two (or even more) Antares classes?
I thought about the naming of ships some time ago, and I really don't see how it works. Let's say there's a USS Challenger. Does it bear the name to honor the space shuttle, the several naval vessels, or maybe the Apollo module? There could be a colony or planet of that name, too. Or a famous person? Does everyone and everything get his/its own USS Challenger? If USS Challenger (the one named for the naval vessel) is destroyed and Starfleet comissions another Challenger, is that one named for something else, the space shuttle maybe? Or do they all have to "share" the ship? The Antares brings that question back to my mind. Maybe we just don't know it but there has been an important battle against the Klingons at Antares and one of the most famous Starfleet captains was a Captain Antares, could it be Starfleet decided to put two ships of the same name into service, maybe even at the same time? If that's their policy, problems like the obvious appearance of two ships of the same name (as mentioned above, Prometheus, or Melbourne) could be easily explained.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the initial question. I have to apologize if this takes the thread into a direction that was not intended...
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
To add to the confusion, the official web site StarTrek.com identifies Charles Evans' transport in the official episode summary as S.S. Antares .
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Regarding what Kyle was trying to say, it's possible for class 2 to have the same name as class 1, provided all ships of class 1 are no longer in service. An example is from the US Navy, where there will be a Virginia class nuclear sub and all ships of the previous Virginia class (a cruiser class, IIRC) have left service.
As for what a ship is named after, generally it doesn't really matter since there wouldn't be two ships with the same name operating simultaneously under the same organization.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Regarding what Kyle was trying to say, it's possible for class 2 to have the same name as class 1, provided all ships of class 1 are no longer in service. An example is from the US Navy, where there will be a Virginia class nuclear sub and all ships of the previous Virginia class (a cruiser class, IIRC) have left service.
As for what a ship is named after, generally it doesn't really matter since there wouldn't be two ships with the same name operating simultaneously under the same organization.
posted
There's plenty of arguments around that though (the Excelsior was actually an unmanned ramming ship called the Melbourneswickywock, the Nebula version was always really the Excelsior version, and so on).
quote:Originally posted by Timo: That goes against the wisdom that whenever you introduce a ship with cool name A, you have the ship be of a class that has a cool name B, so you get two cool names with the price of one...
Except the Defiant. But they couldn't get around that one.
-------------------- 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
posted
You mean that Valiant-class "escort" cum Borg-fighter in DS9?
AFAIK, even published fanfic (until now) has been pretty consistent about not reusing class names: there's an Advance class both in the Spaceflight Chronology and Ships of the Star Fleet, even though the latter otherwise pays homage to the former, but that's pretty much it. Plenty of names out there to choose from.
OTOH, there are many confusing cases of later individual ships using names of earlier classes; some real-world navies try to avoid those, while others do not. Can we have a USS Excelsior who isn't of Excelsior class when there are many Excelsior class ships still in service? The argument will establish the class identity of the vessel mentioned in "Interface". Ditto with Constellation and the ships in "The Abandoned" and "Waltz".
I rather think Starfleet would avoid naming a ship USS Antares if there already was an Antares class in service - although perhaps not necessarily, for example if the class wasn't in Starfleet service.
posted
Since we've been talking about civillian ships, maybe Antares Class is like us today saying Chevy Malibu or Ford Mustang. Malibu and Mustang being the "class" of the car.
Car dealers today have various models that are in production for years and years, then stop production for a while only to start again later. As technology progresses, the styles change. My wife's 2000 Malibu looks nothing like my buddy's old Malibu from the late 60s
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
