capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person - it's USS Chekhov, not USS Pavel Chekhov or USS Pavel D Chekov (I don't know if he has a middle name, but he's Russian, so he should have a patronymic).
Pavel Andreievich Chekov (no h). his fathers name was most likely Andrei
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: Another thing is that SF doesn't follow the US practice of naming a ship with the full name of a person - it's USS Chekhov, not USS Pavel Chekhov or USS Pavel D Chekov (I don't know if he has a middle name, but he's Russian, so he should have a patronymic).
Pavel Andreievich Chekov (no h). his fathers name was most likely Andrei
I wouldn't fancy being the poor captain who would have to say "This is the Federation Starship Pavel Andreievich Chekov", if they used the US system.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey! I have a Saladin patch too. I took the name for one of my Pyotr Velikiy ships and used the RN badge as the basis of my emblem.
I like that simple Ptolomey patch. However, using old pictures on patches is tricky. Some of mine turned out OK while others didn't. I find that putting a black/clear image on a colored background makes the figure fade out too much.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The "blocks" of hull numbers makes perfect sense and who's to say that at some time in the early 24th century - or late 23rd - someone decided to abandon that method for an "order of contruction" method instead...
Maybe the number of ships was getting too large to handle using the old way and they just felt it would be easier to assign numbers as the ships were completed.
As for the ships with odd-ball numbers (1664 etc) that are out of sync - refits. Older classes brought up to newer specs with heavy refits.
Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
On of the reasons for not adjusting the Saladin (and Hermes) registries is the mentioning of the Columbia (NCC-621, Cygnus class Scout) and the Revere (NCC-595, Hermes class Scout) in TMP. And seeing as both these ships are from the SFTM, the low registries of the Hermes and Saladin are vaguely canon. Same goes for the 21** registries of the Federation class. But the 38** numbers are just so out of range and were never mentioned, so I felt I could change them to fit in a little better.
And if it's any consolidation, the first batch of Oberths also have very low registries.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: On of the reasons for not adjusting the Saladin (and Hermes) registries is the mentioning of the Columbia (NCC-621, Cygnus class Scout) and the Revere (NCC-595, Hermes class Scout) in TMP. And seeing as both these ships are from the SFTM, the low registries of the Hermes and Saladin are vaguely canon. Same goes for the 21** registries of the Federation class. But the 38** numbers are just so out of range and were never mentioned, so I felt I could change them to fit in a little better.
And if it's any consolidation, the first batch of Oberths also have very low registries.
Oberth NCC-602, Copernicus NCC-623 and Grissom NCC-638 fit in perfectly with Cygnus NCC-600 and Columbia NCC-621, so I assumed that some Oberths were originally Cygnus Class and were upgraded, which would explain the 602 of the Oberth, which doesn't fit in with my block system.
I kind of worked out that build-order registries came into effect in the late 2000s (after Hathaway NCC-2593 and before Stargazer NCC-2893).
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
If the Oberths are Cygnuses refitted, then we have to abandon the idea that the "subclasses" in SFTM are at least roughly similar to the "main classes" depicted (you can't refit a close Hermes relative into an Oberth). Which isn't necessarily a bad change, but IMHO not a very good one, either.
The Cygnus subclass is a fun case because it loses its namesake ship to a canon vessel. It wouldn't be impossible to think that three Cygnuses were cancelled in favor of Oberths, including the class ship - but it would also be a rather special case. There are no doubt some real world examples of such things, but I can't think of any just now.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: If the Oberths are Cygnuses refitted, then we have to abandon the idea that the "subclasses" in SFTM are at least roughly similar to the "main classes" depicted (you can't refit a close Hermes relative into an Oberth). Which isn't necessarily a bad change, but IMHO not a very good one, either.
The Cygnus subclass is a fun case because it loses its namesake ship to a canon vessel. It wouldn't be impossible to think that three Cygnuses were cancelled in favor of Oberths, including the class ship - but it would also be a rather special case. There are no doubt some real world examples of such things, but I can't think of any just now.
Timo Saloniemi
Only if you take the Cygnus design from the SFTM. Surely (speaking canonically here) the Cygnus could just be an older-looking Oberth? Different nacelles, more boxey, more TOS-ish?
I don't particularly like all the 1-nacelled ships from the SFTM anyway. ST has shown that they are very uncommon (even ENT ships have 2 nacelles), if not completely unseen, and I would rather dismiss them as uncanon to be honest.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Speaking strictly canon, you're right. But I'd like to say the SFTM is mostly canon as far as ships are concerned (not Starfleet HQ, the articles and organigrams). We've seen all the ships appearing on monitors in the first three movies, and we've heard of four ships in the TMP comm chatter.
Of course, there are some conflicts with canon. The Antares NCC-501 clashes with a Saladin, and some Oberths clash with Hermii/Cygnii. But I'd like to explain that, instead of just saying the SFTM ships are not canon. Plus, I've kind of grown to like FJ's ships.
Anyway... I don't really want this to be a discussion on the relevance of the SFTM...
posted
I don't know how the size works out, but could you take a Cygnus saucer section, stick two nacelles and a bottom bit on and make an Oberth?
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I wrote a short piece on how to merge the Hermes/Monoceros/Cygnus and Oberth registries.
All canon ships (the two from TMP and the various Oberths from later movies) have the registries and classes that they should have. Some other ships have either registry or class altered.
-------------------- "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
which ship stole the Cygnus's reg agian?
i prefer to think that a SFTM ship that had its registry stolen by another vessel still exists, just with a different registry.. if the Cygnus registry is superseded by another source i give more credit to, then i would list the Cygnus as the class ship of the cygnus-class, but with a 'registry unknown' tag.. it might possibly be one of those cases of ships that have wildly different registries than their yard-mates (like the 1017 and 16xx Connies)
basically i just assume that the ship still exists, just that the TM was wrong about the reg
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Turning a Cygnus into an Oberth just won't work; the sizes don't transfer. While there is a great deal of confusion about the size of the Oberth (as I found out on Bernd's site), the greatest length I ever saw given for the class was roughly 198 meters. At that scale, the ship is only 103 meters wide at it's broadest point (the outside edges of the nacelles); the saucer part of the hull is only 64 meters wide (barely half the beam of a Connie-variant hull).
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
