posted
I have a number of questions about the Arcos 1. Was the ship Arcos referred to as USS Arcos in the episode? IIRC, the Arcos was referred to as a freighter and not as USS Arcos. 2. Why did the crew members wear uniforms similiar to those of the Norkova, another Federation ship? (I identified the Norkova as Federation because of the technology seen on the bridge, the uniforms worn by the crew, and that the episode in which the Norkova is seen mentions that the Federation is shipping the cargo from the Gamma Quadrant. Interestingly, the crew of the NCC-29487 USS Raman wore the same uniforms.) 3. Were there only two crew members-a chief engineer and a captain? 4. Why is the escape pod of the Arcos different from other Starfleet escape pods? This pod is similiar to the escape pod used in "The Most Toys" and later seen as the NAR-2066 Nenebec, the time travel ship, the Yridian YLT-3069 ship, and the Toron Class NCD-31775 ship . I have had these questions since I first saw "Legacy".
------------------ Frank's Home Page "Antagonist Class Badly-Armored Poorly-Equipped Crappy-Fire Support Tug. To search out new armor and batteries. Because, well, we don't have a warp-core. That is my flagship, BTW." - Antag
posted
When I originally saw the episode, I was under the impression that the Arcos was a Federation ship (like, say, the Norkova), but not a Starfleet starship. However, the ship list in the 'pedia gives "Deneva" as the Arcos's class. Since every ship on that list is either a Starfleet starship or a civilian/research ship that was once a SF starship (like the Vico), then logically the Arcos is a Starfleet ship.
The choice of the Merchantman as the design for the Deneva class Arcos isn't really a good idea...the Cardassians used the same design for one of their freighters! I doubt Starfleet ever shared ship designs with them (remember the Bok'Nor?)
------------------ Bart: "Hey, Dad, I'll trade you this delicious doorstop for that crummy old danish." Homer: "Done and done...D'oh!"
posted
Actually, I think all the crew died in the crash, except for Scotty and the other guy who went into stasis.
------------------ "We have HTML and images in sigs disabled here. Don't try it. If you do, I'll shove the image up your ass, then ban you. Have a nice day. :)" -Charles Capps, August 13, 2000
posted
I really don't think there was enough of the Vico's history to say she had once been a Starfleet ship. All we know was that she had an NAR registry, but was of a Starfleet class. I'd say it's possible for civilian Fed ships to be built to a Starfleet class, just as the Apollo class could be of general Vulcan design and both the T'Pau and the Gage are of this class.
------------------ Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Yosemite Sam: "Well, I speak loudly and I carry a bigger stick...and I use it too!"
posted
I believe the uniforms seen on the Yosemite, Raman, Norkova and Arcos crews among others date back to "Who Watches the Watchers" where they premiered as the UFP anthropologist uniforms. The very fact that they are uniform suggests that the people seen wearing them are part of some sort of a "paramilitary" organization - say, an officious UFP Space Travelers' Guild or something.
I put the SS in SS Xhosa just to separate it from the various USS ships, not to imply a Federation origin - but I do like to think that all those vaguely Xhosa-like ships from the Batris on are of a general design mostly used by the UFP, and purchased by others from UFP sources. Sometimes these others may sell the designs onwards to UFP enemies like Talarians, or then earlier allies later become enemies after a purchase. In any case, USS Hermes of Antares class in "Redemption" is a Xhosa-like freighter in my books, simply drafted in Starfleet use and painted accordingly.
And I think the USS for USS Arcos comes merely from the Encyclopedia, not from the episode. The LaSalle wasn't called a USS explicitly, either, if I remember correctly. But the NCC registries for the ships are rather well established and accepted even if noncanon, so I hesitate to consider these ships non-Starfleet.
posted
Isn't the ship in "Final Mission" a reuse of the Batris and Xhosa models? If so, this kills the idea that the Antares of "Charlie X" is a prototype of this variant of the Antares Class. This ship, which is used as a garbage scow, dates to the 21st century.
The USS LaSalle is identified as a starship in "Reunion".
As for the Arcos, if the model is identified as being a Merchantman or Antares variant when visually identified on DVD, then this makes the Arcos non-Starfleet. Anyway, until that date, the Arcos is a Federation freighter whose shape and affiation in the canonical literature is unknown.
As I study Star Trek in detail on this forum and on DVD, I come to realize that the task that Mr. Okuda had with the encyclopedia was ambitious and couldn't be achieved for a number of the entries had to reconcile all the known facts of a ship, person, planet, or historical events. I believe that the store of knowledge is growing beyond the capacity of a single volume reference. This will be certainly true with the next film and series.
There are three opinions developing over the quality of the encyclopedia. The first opinion is that the encyclopedia is accurate, comprehensive, and is a great reference for Star Trek. Second opinion is that the encylopedia has some errors, is partially comprehensive, and is a good reference for Star Trek. Third opinion is that the encyclopedia has numerous errors in facts and reflects the work of a hurried writer rushing to meet a deadline, is very incomprehensive and doesn't attempt to answer all contradictions, and is either an okay or bad reference. And, further with the third opinion, the work is consistent with the other Star Trek publications of Paramount-good visual diagrams, summation of information seen on the shows with little elaboration, numerous errors, and an expensive price. Many people are either into the first or second opinion. I am into the third opinion.
One of the many frustrations I have is that facts are printed without collaborating evidence. An example-the debate on the Constitution Class prototype. Mr. Okuda writes that the NCC-1700 USS Constitution can be seen in a data screen from "Space Seed". The only thing I can think that might match this is the sickbay monitor that shows a schematic of a ship. The writing is ineligible. Did Mr. Okuda have a copy of the data screen on hand? My understanding is that the majority of props from the first series were destroyed or misplaced. Further, complicating matters, the only diagram of the NCC-1700, from "Datalore", shows the dorsal view of the ship with the registry and no name. I would have wished that he, if the prop is on hand, included the data screen into the encyclopedia. This data screen would have been of historical interest and might have helped the debate on either side of the Constitution Class prototype issue.
posted
Well, there's nothing to say that the Antares of "Charlie X" doesn't date from the 21st century. Or the 20th, for that matter, or the 17th, if it is of alien manufacture, say, Vulcan. So the ship could be the prototype of the Antares class if one really insists.
However, I don't want to think that the Batris and the Xhosa were of the same class. They are completely different in their size, bow structure and detailing. What I want to say is that both the Batris, the Xhosa, the Norkova and various other uses of the model represent one style of shipbuilding, a style that is in use in the UFP and includes the Antares class also in Starfleet use.
Much like you could with one look say "oh, that ship is a Djonk, it must be Chinese" or "that's a Daui, must be from some Arabic nation from the Indian Ocean", you can say "oh, that's an Antares-like design, must be UFP" as a first-estimate assessment. The fundamental structure of three cylindrar inboard engines and those typical containers underneath is something shared by a "school of shipbuilding" that sells its products to the UFP and also to foreign nations.
I find nothing objectionable in Talarians or Klingons or Cardassians having ships also operated by the UFP. The Soviet Union was full of DC-3 and B-29 planes till the sixties, and the "Made in Germany" warning during WWI was the biggest reason for somebody from Britain or France to buy the quality product.
In any case, I trust that there will never be any further data on the Arcos, but something may pop out on the Deneva class in general. In the meantime, I'm quite happy with having Deneva be the original Merchantman, in Starfleet registry and service if need be, but just as possibly in some other registry and service despite what the Encyclopedia suggests.
posted
In Okuda's defense, the Encyclopedia cites references in a much more useful manner than many reference works about fictional worlds.
One that springs to mind (of many, many such things) are Ford's guide to The Chronicles of Narnia. There are no citations for any of the material - you are left to guess if he's directly citing one of the original books, reading between the lines, basing the material on the author's correspondence, or merely inventing facts and reasoning.
Another is Chaosium's "Encyclopedia Cthulhuiana" about Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos and the hundreds of stories by authors set in his universe. Each entry in this book describes the object in a complete and coherent description, then lists the sources at the end. Since the same entity might be described by different authors in different ways, you're left to guess which source corresponds to which part of the entry text.
The Encyclopedia helpfully intersperses the sources along with what is being referred to. It's not perfect, but it's much, much better than many comparative works.
I am annoyed by web sites and lists that don't fully document their materials. Heck, even ones I'm (partially) responsible for, like the Expanded Ship List. Looking at an entry, you can't always tell where the registry, class, name and description came from. Maybe it was named in an episode but classed in the encyclopedia and registried in mail from Okuda.
Ideally we'd tag all of this info with metadata. In XML, it'd be something like U.S.S. LummoxNCC-31415I got this message from Okuda: ..... Unfortunately, most of us working on this fan stuff don't have the time and/or resources to be building this stuff as a fully relational database and web server distilling XML records and performing XSL translations for presentation to HTML browsers.
Okay, back on topic now.
While poking around Bernd's site it looks like the Sheliak ship is a Merchantman redress. Does that strain the credibility of the ship as a Starfleet/civiian vessel occasionally sold to other species? The Sheliak (posited in that episode as being out of touch with the Feds for 111 years, but a comparatively powerful species) seem unlikely to be using 2nd hand starships.
Unfortunate - I was envisioning a Starfleet Merchantman as looking very Oberth-like, with nacelles slung under the wingtips (speculating that private vessels have less powerful inboard nacelles).
posted
In my previous post, the markup didn't come through. Since I'm too lazy to read the directions and figure out the escaping, here's what I meant:
posted
Actually, "Ensigns of Command" mostly shows a bow view of the vessel, making it look very alien and virtually unrecognizable. Unfortunately, there is one #"�%& rear shot that belies the Merchantman origin of the model. Otherwise, I'd be willing to ignore any family resemblance as coincidental.
The Vidiian ship from "Phage" is another very extensive Merchantman redress that *almost* manages to hide the origin of the ship (some very angular hull panels are added, and the easily identifiable "whiskers" camouflaged). It's a given that a Delta ship cannot be directly connected to Alpha ships, be they Sheliak or UFP or Klingon or Pakled in origin....
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
Looking from Trek perspective, the Vidiian ship doesn't need to be directly based on the Merchantman design. It would just be coincidence that it vaguely looks Merchantman-ish.
------------------
ALPHA CENTAURI
Human Class - Starfleet registry NCC-75715 Launched stardate 8311.23 - Parental Biology Yards United Federation of Planets
"A dedication motto? What about it?" - Alpha Centauri
Printer-friendly view of this topic
