1) Okuda doesn't think there was any special control over getting the VFX people to film Melbourne, Chekov and Kyushu specifically for the scene where Shelby names the ships. So while the Kyushu clearly is in the scene, the other two need not be.

2) The Excelsior study models weren't named or registered. Although Bill George had written "Alka-selsior" on one ship, I think we can agree to consider all these models unnamed . So we can then name them as we please: the four-naceller could be the Rigel class Tolstoy since it is rather clearly seen in the "Shelby scene" (even if the Excelsior design and the 68000 registry don't exactly match). The three-naceller on the right probably isn't any of the three/four ships Shelby names - it certainly doesn't match the Chekov description, which is kinda vague as of now but definitely has two marker pen nacelles.

3) Okuda thinks Greg Jein built both the single-nacelle Freedom and a three-nacelled ship. He didn't tell yet if there were more than one of these three-nacellers, but it seems unlikely.

Nothing definite on which photos Okuda found and what kind of book he's going to do, if any - but I asked about those things directly, so the answer might be coming soon.

And all Okuda ever gave Nemecek for doing the Fact Files ships was the list of ships present (names and registries), and he doesn't know how the FF got their design info.

Oh, I think it is also a sign that all those people that Mike mentioned are doing and have done a great job over the years that nearly all those names most Trek fans would know... For a crew of a television show - that is a rare thing - could anyone tell me who did the make up on... LA Law? for instance or who built models for the effects in Earth 2?

If Greg Jein probably built the three-nacelled ship (Niagara?), this would match the previous statement that he built the freedom and the Rigel when the latter was supposed to have three nacelles.

------------------
"A few more calculations"

------------------
Lisa: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Bart: "Not if you called them 'stench blossoms'..."
-The Simpsons

---

In a message dated 2/13/00 1:54:20 PM, [email protected] writes:

>>"A scaled-down Galaxy-shaped saucer, and two warp nacelles, one above and the other below the engineering hull".

>I was wrong above. The above description is the Buran. The Chekov is the small Ertl Galaxy saucer with four marker-pen nacelles. I've since given more info to Timo.

I think, now he confuses the Awanhee/Cheyenne with the Chekov/Sprinfield

>The three-nacelled ship was made by Greg Jein. I don't recall what the designation was for that ship. I'll try to remember to ask Greg if he remembers.

YES! I think we got it! I sent him the picture of our possible Princeton/Niagara (the vertical ship). This IS the tree-nacelled ship (and yes there are three nacelles) build by Greg Jein (not the Rigel!) So it has to be the Princeton/Niagara.

>I seem to recall that the only time I noticed the Melbourne in BOBW2 was from a fairly head-on angle, and it was rather small in the frame. Bear in mind that while I was one of the people who helped with the models, I did NOT shoot the models, nor was I there when they were composited, so I could easily have missed something there.

The only remaining ship seen from head-on is the second view of the Tolstoy/Rigel. But this must now be the Melbourne/Nebula - there is really no Tolstoy/Rigel!

>Hope this helps a little.
>
>-Mike

BOAH YES!!! THIS HELPS MORE THAN A LITTLE

-Chris

---

------------------
"A few more calculations"

The answer appears to be no in both cases. The USS Challenger NCC-2032 and USS Springfield NCC-1963 are ships of the 2270's and 2280's in design and capability. The newer USS Challenger and USS Springfield appear to be ships of the 2330's to 2340's in design and capability based on their sister ships the USS Buran and the USS Chekov.

I have a few questions.
First, I am unclear as to the number of nacelles for the Springfield Class. I read in one posting two nacelles and in the other four nacelles. Can someone clarify this issue?
Second, can the image of the vertical ship's saucer be "cleaned" up. I believe that it may be possible to read some of the registry. The last part of the registry can be read as a 4 or something else. Confirmation of this reading would be helpful.
Third, Mr. Okuda spoke of being restricted in his ability to release photos. Does one of you understand the legalities of releasing photos and other material and can you explain to the others the legalities?

Thank you.

I feel really dirty for jumping the gun and forwarding the emails before Okuda made clear how they should be reprinted.

Here in any case is my version 1.701-G-and-counting of which ship is which. Consider it an attempt to clear up my thoughts on this, and feel free to disagree.

Chekov/Springfield: not yet spotted, but likely to be vaguely Enterprise-like with two nacelles (just taking the median for two replies saying two nacelles and one saying four). Could be of any size. Probably this is the ship there exists the least information about, barring another serendipitous photo discovery.

Buran/Challenger: most likely to be the one in the middle of the debris field, labeled "Challenger in BoBW?" in the Wolf 359 page. Possibly represents a rather large ship at a distance, with nacelles of Galaxy size but with a much smaller saucer. Might also be a Freedom-sized ship with downscaled nacelles. Probably a cruiser of some sort.

Firebrand/Freedom: the positively identified single-naceller, probably rather small with a smaller-than-Galaxy nacelle. Perhaps a destroyer a la Saladin class?

Princeton/Niagara: very likely to be the three-naceller seen both in the "Shelby scene" viewscreen and as the "vertical ship" in the exterior pics. It appears Jein built *a* three-naceller, not several, and this is it. The ship might well have full Galaxy nacelles, but again the saucer is significantly smaller - so the ship doesn't really dwarf the Galaxy. She's probably just another heavy cruiser instead of a superheavy explorer-dreadnought.

Tolstoy/Rigel: name invented in place of Chekov for dramatic needs, so no model designed or labeled as such. But there are plenty of unnamed models to choose from, e.g. the four-nacelled Excelsior study model. The 68000 registry is a problem, though. It might be better to say that Rigel is the flaming saucer on the left of the first viewscreen shots - even if this hulk is not quite on screen when Shelby says "Tolstoy", she could simply be voicing the name of the ship she first recognized a while ago and then move on to ships actually visible on the screen.

Melbourne/Nebula: probably the "head-on" ship formerly thought of as Rigel, possibly also the flaming ship seen from above in the exterior pictures. I'd like to ignore the name Melbourne, as well as the registry, because it's now obvious they cannot be seen even with the help of a future image-enhancing supermachine. The name and registry should be reserved for the Excelsior seen relatively well in "Emissary".

Ahwahnee/Cheyenne: just as described. The model is unlikely to have any aft detail, since the mounting pole for photography is attached there. But I'd like to imagine the missing shuttlebay is in this location. Could be a light cruiser or a frigate - in any case, seems to be among the smallest ships in the battle after Freedom.

Kyushu/New Orleans: I'd be interested to hear what makes Starfleet consider this one a frigate. Perhaps all frigates have those external weapons pods (making Miranda a frigate as well, just as fanfic has always said)? Conversely, a pod doesn't a frigate make, as seen with Nebula.

I'm adding an edited summary of Timo's and Mike's communication to my website.

------------------
"A few more calculations"

About the former Rigel being the Melbourne...if that is indeed the case, its nacelles and pylons would have to have been completely removed, and the secondary hull would be really, really long,