posted
I figured I should just put this in a new post instead of putting it in the existing once. After reading thoroughly through the book today, I'd like to point out some inconsistances and stuff that I think we need to address.
1) Constitution Class apparently was launched in 2245, same year as Enterprise. For those of you who believe registries are chronological, this screws with things.
2) Only 2 starships of the class had been lost by 2270. Unfortunatly we know Constellation, Defiant, and Intrepid were all confirmed as lost.
3) Apparently the Enterprise only had 2 phasers, stuck in a single bank. Now, if I remember correctly, weren't there other phaser banks stuck elsewhere on the ship?
4) According to the book, the Constitution Class entered refit in 2270 and was returned to service in 2273. Unfortunatly, this goes against Decker's comment in TMP that the ship had only been in refit for a year and a half. Book also claims the events of TMP took place in 2273 as well.
5) The book claims that before the USS Miranda was launched, a old class of frigate was refitted to be similar in design to the Miranda Class. Could this possibly be a reference to the Soyuz Class?
6) In the Nova Class section, the book claims that the Oberth class was first commissioned in 2290. Unfortunatly, this date is utterly impossible since the events of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (which featured the Oberth Class USS Grissom) as well as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Which featured the Oberth Class USS Copernicus) both happened before 2290.
7) Commissioning date of Akira class put at 2368, which jives with those who believe registries are chrnological.
8) At the end of the Defiant section, it says the following line: "Another Defiant-class vessel, the U.S.S. Sao Paulo, was assigned to Deep Space 9 as a replacement. A special dispensation was made by Starfleet Command for the ship to be renamed Defiant, and to retain its original registry number." Now, does this mean it keeps the DEFIANT'S registry number or the SAO PAULO'S registry number?
9) Apparently the Sovereign Class has 3 torpedo launchers, even though the studio model had 5, and then we have the mysterious "6th launcher" in Insurrection.
10) The Intrepid class page seems to repeat the backstory that 4 Intrepid Class starships were launched, and Voyager was the 2nd.
11) Obviously someone didn't look very well at the Prometheus model. They claim the ship has 4 primary nacelle and 1 back-up nacelle (doh!)
12) Launch date of Prometheus is 2374, and it also has the NX-59650 registry. Again, another jive for people who like chronological registries.
I didn't really read over the Alien ship section, so I have no comment there.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
posted
4) A recent VOY episode set Kirk's mission between 2265 and 2270, so moving the movie to 2273 makes sense if we assume Kirk came back in late 2270.
8) Probably the Defiant's registry number, since Okuda confirmed that the registry remained the same even on the Okudagrams.
11) The nacelle could serve as a backup also if the others are damaged.
My complaints:
13) The Defiant being assigned to DS9 in late 2371, when it's in fact early 2371.
14) The Defiant having only two quantum/photon launchers, when we know from numerous episodes that it had at least one aft launcher as well, and at least one forward probe launcher in the nose. I believe they also failed to include the beam-phasers seen in "Shattered Mirror", "Paradise Lost", and "Message in a Bottle."
posted
We know that. I'm thinking that this particular explanation could be used for the ship's primary (docked) configuration, in which the fifth nacelle could be used as a backup in case one of the others fails.
quote:Originally posted by The359: 4) According to the book, the Constitution Class entered refit in 2270 and was returned to service in 2273. Unfortunatly, this goes against Decker's comment in TMP that the ship had only been in refit for a year and a half. Book also claims the events of TMP took place in 2273 as well.
As Phelps mentioned, "Q2" (VGR) established that the five-year mission ended in 2270, not Okuda's conjectural 2269. While the Enterprise refit only took eighteen months, Kirk was behind a desk for two and a half years, as he told Scotty. And later, Decker said that Kirk hadn't "logged a single star-hour in two and a half years." As such, even if the five-year mission ended in January 2270, the earliest that The Motion Picture could be set is July 2272. Early 2273 is a perfectly logical choice if the ship returned in the middle of the year.
Interestingly, I noticed that the current issue of The Magazine includes the "Q2" date for the end of the mission, but strangely keeps The Motion Picture in 2271.
quote:Originally posted by The359: 5) The book claims that before the USS Miranda was launched, a old class of frigate was refitted to be similar in design to the Miranda Class. Could this possibly be a reference to the Soyuz Class?
The tech specs were mostly written by Alex Rosenzweig, collaborator on the Avenger blueprints (and occasional Flare poster). It is almost certainly a reference to the Surya and/or Coventry classes from Ships of the Star Fleet, naturally. Incidentally, all of the names for the systems (RIM-12 phasers and so on) are taken or extrapolated from that book.
quote:Originally posted by The359: 8) At the end of the Defiant section, it says the following line: "Another Defiant-class vessel, the U.S.S. Sao Paulo, was assigned to Deep Space 9 as a replacement. A special dispensation was made by Starfleet Command for the ship to be renamed Defiant, and to retain its original registry number." Now, does this mean it keeps the DEFIANT'S registry number or the SAO PAULO'S registry number?
According to Alex, this means that it keeps the Sao Paulo's number and the reused visual effects in "What You Leave Behind" were nothing more significant than reused visual effects.
[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
posted
However, there were *new* renders in WYLB which eplicitly show the old NX-74205 reg in various places. I'm all for keeping the new number as well, and just believing that some wanker made a deliberate mistake when they were out repainting the hull.
quote:Originally posted by The359: 1) Constitution Class apparently was launched in 2245, same year as Enterprise. For those of you who believe registries are chronological, this screws with things.
How? I don't exactly understand.
quote:6) In the Nova Class section, the book claims that the Oberth class was first commissioned in 2290. Unfortunatly, this date is utterly impossible since the events of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (which featured the Oberth Class USS Grissom) as well as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Which featured the Oberth Class USS Copernicus) both happened before 2290.
Maybe it's supposed to be 2190? Works with my setup.
quote:7) Commissioning date of Akira class put at 2368, which jives with those who believe registries are chrnological.
Unless you're using jive in a different manner. No it doesn't. The USS Galaxy is 7**** and that's 2353. There are some Akira Class ships that are 63***, which places it in the 2340's. A contemporary to the Nebula Class.
quote:12) Launch date of Prometheus is 2374, and it also has the NX-59650 registry. Again, another jive for people who like chronological registries.
Like the arguement that has been well talked about recently... the Yamato is 71807 and not 1305-E, the Prometheus is 74913 not 59650. If you accept one, accept both. If you have another opinion--- don't try to convince me of it
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
And ships like the USS Eagle NCC-956, USS Constellation NCC-1017, and USS Republic NCC-1371, if registries are chronological, couldn't have been launched in 2245.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm questioning the canonicity of Starship Spotter at this point. While the graphics, registries and sizes are cool and a real good glimpse into a lot of our discussions, the textual histories seem to be riddled with errors that would label it as non-canon.
(Side Note: I just read the passage in Sternbach & Okuda's TNG TM that dismisses other Treknical publications.. something about previous technical forms being printed with false information by Starfleet Intelligence to confuse threat intelligence.. I wonder if the Klingons were scared when they read Starfleet Intelligence's 'fabricated' list of 100+ Constitutions in Franz Joseph's Tech Manual.)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
Why would it ever be a canon book in the first place?
(a) Canon is onscreen only.
(b) The generally-accepted definition of semi-canon (the Encylopedia, Chronolgy, two Sternbachian Tech Manuals and possibly even Pathways, Mosaic and Legends of the Ferengi) tends to be based on the idea that within a reasonable doubt we can assume that were something to come up onscreen about topic X the writers would take their cues from either one of the books in question of from the authors of the books. We can pretty safely assume that Cardassian lifeboats are made of what DS9TM says they're made of because (as Ira Stephen Behr writes in his introduction) if a situation had come up where their composition was to be noted onscreen he would have bugged Sternbach. Marauder Mo action figures and Slug-o-Cola are examples of stuff from RHW and ISB's imaginations that eventually did get canonized onscreen.
Starship Spotter doesn't strike me as a book that would meet either of those requirements.
[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Well, maybe i should have said 'semi-canon'. I was under the assumption that the authors of Starship Spotter worked on the actual creation of the ships for the filmed productions, and therefore are a good source of previously unseen data that is true to the the technical details of the ships as created for the shows.
Since all of the semi-canon works are done by people who are on staff of the show, i thought this might be under that umbrella.
Not that I give a shit what is canon and what isnt.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
quote:And ships like the USS Eagle NCC-956, USS Constellation NCC-1017, and USS Republic NCC-1371, if registries are chronological, couldn't have been launched in 2245
If the Sao-Paulo can have special dispensation to be renamed and repainted and regestered as NX-74205 USS Defiant then why couldn't the above ships, the Eagle, the Constellation and the Republic? Why couldn't this have also happened to the other ships with wierd-ass registries like the NX-Prometheus (I don't like this one as much since there was a Prometheus about 2 years before it.)
Same with the Yamato - maybe special dispensation was given at one time to the Captain to allow his ship to be known by that comical name... it didn't last long.
But the others work above. Presumably new ships with old names/registries given by special dispensation.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
