Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on May 11, 2006 23:14:27 GMT -6
Starship Registries What do the NCC numbers mean? Are they chronological? Looking at the progression of starship registries from the 23rd to the 24th century, the spontaneous answer is "yes". But there are several inconsistencies and possible other factors than the mere numbers to be taken into account. Analysis In the 22nd century Starfleet starships generally seemed to have 3-digit registry numbers, just like the Daedalus-class vessels U.S.S. Archon NCC-189 and U.S.S. Horizon NCC-173 (Star Trek Encyclopedia). We do not know that for sure though, as visual records of such hull numbers are missing. In the 23rd century registries with 4 digits were common, including the famous U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 and the U.S.S. Excelsior NX- (later NCC-) 2000. Finally, another digit has been added in the 24th century, as it can be seen on the hulls of Sisko's U.S.S. Saratoga NCC-31911, the U.S.S. Voyager NCC-74656 and numerous more Starfleet ships. This is why we can suppose that the registry number of a starship at least roughly correlates with the time when it was commissioned. In case of chronological registries the increasing number of digits suggests an exponential increase in the number of starships. This would indicate that Starfleet owns more than 10,000 starships "at present" (in the 24th century) if we suppose an average lifetime of some decades for a single starship. This does not seem to comply with most of TNG and early DS9 episodes when starships appeared to be scarce and the 39 ships destroyed in the battle at Wolf 359 were regarded as a heavy loss. On the other hand, a number in the thousands is realistic taking into account how many ships fell victim to the Dominion War. It started with the 98 ships of the Seventh Fleet in DS9: "A Time to Stand", and subsequently several hundred more must have been destroyed in the big battles in DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels", "Tears of the Prophets", "The Changing Face of Evil", "What You Leave Behind" and countless skirmishes that were not even mentioned. If registries are chronological this may give an impression of the production times of the single classes too. Some classes like the Excelsior, Miranda and especially the Oberth have a very wide range of registries, indicating a very long construction period. The chart below plots the given registries over time. The yellow dots denote mentions of ships which are in active service for an unspecified time, whereas the green dots represent ships which have just been commissioned. Assuming that the new ships always have the highest existing number, one may connect all the green dots and the highest orange dots to a line which gives the registry limit and perhaps the number of ships ever commissioned. One thing to note is the aforementioned roughly exponential increase over time until about 2360. The other remarkable fact is that the latest registries of the 2360's and 2370's don't rise that rapidly any longer, despite the many new ship classes, advances in technology and the recent Borg confrontations and Dominion War. Theories There are many theories that Starfleet's registries could have a significance beyond being a simple chronological number for each individual vessel. It was an early attempt to explain the Enterprise's registry NCC-1701 in that it could stand for the 17th design or class of ships, and that it was the second ship of that class (after the Constitution NCC-1700). Likewise, if not a class, the "17" could denote heavy cruisers or another more general type of vessels. Alas, there are very few occurrences of registries among ships of the same class that are accordingly close together (e.g. U.S.S. Monitor NCC-61826 and U.S.S. Merrimack NCC-61827, U.S.S. Defiant NX-74205 and U.S.S. Valiant NCC-74210). Other than that, the closest known registries of most classes span many hundred numbers (like the NCC-26xxx in the Ambassador class or the NCC-60xxx and NCC-61xxx in the Nebula class). Even if for some reason large number ranges were skipped, the known registries would still not be close enough to maintain that there are at most one or two hundred ships of these classes. Ultimately the idea that the ship class is encoded in the registry fails considering how the registries of the Galaxy class and the Nebula class intersect in the NCC-71xxx range and the registries of Defiant and Intrepid in the NCC-72xxx range. Almost all recently (2368-2375) commissioned ships have registries in the range from NCC-72000 to NCC-75000, irrespective of their class. In other words, the gaps in the registry system are apparently not empty but routinely occupied by ships of other classes and of completely different types. A simple rationale for the high registries in the 24th century could be that not only Starfleet ships but also other Federation vessels are included in the registry system, which is corroborated by the S.S. Vico NAR-18834 and some other civilian science ships or freighters, where NAR seems to denote research vessels not belonging to Starfleet. Yet, an orbital shuttle had the registry NAR-25820 as soon as in 2293 ("Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"). Perhaps the civilian registry scheme is totally independent of the Starfleet NCC numbers, meaning that every prefix is using the full range of numbers. It is also possible that every runabout has its individual registry in the 24th century, whereas this type of vessel did either not exist or was numbered as belonging to a home starbase or a starship in former times. Assuming there are several thousand of them, this could be another explanation for the high 24th century registries. An alternative explanation is that Starfleet simply started skipping hundreds of registry numbers beginning about at NCC-2000. This may explain why there is no known number between NCC-21000 and NCC-26000 or between NCC-46000 and NCC-50000, for instance. The reason for leaving out ranges of hundreds or thousands of numbers may have been that the true number of Starships should not become obvious to potential enemies at the first glance. It is also possible that, rather than an obvious code for the design or class, the numbers include some kind of checksum which could be the middle digit of the five-digit numbers. Another severe problem is caused by single registries that do not match the above scheme because they are not within a reasonable range. For example, the registry number of the Oberth-class U.S.S. Grissom ("Star Trek III: The Search for Spock") is NCC-638. If all starships are successively numbered this means that the Grissom is much older than the original Enterprise, though she looks rather contemporary to the Excelsior. In the 24th century, moreover, Oberth-class starships are not only still in use, but even new ones are commissioned, as e.g. the U.S.S. Cochrane NCC-59318 (Star Trek Encyclopedia). It is hardly believable that starships are constructed based on the same design for more than 150 years, while on the other hand there is a great variety (about 50 to 60 confirmed yet) of different classes with apparently short life spans of only two or three decades. A famous oddity is the lettering of Matt Decker's U.S.S. Constellation as "NCC-1017" (TOS: "The Doomsday Machine") which was obviously done by rearranging the number "NCC-1701" of the AMT Enterprise model kit. The trouble is that the registry number of the class ship U.S.S. Constitution is NCC-1700 (so the Enterprise would be the second ship of this class). An explanation for almost all registry numbers that do not match the scheme is that starships were not necessarily chronologically numbered until the end of the 23rd century. It is possible that numbers of decommissioned ships were reused, perhaps even denoting new ships with the same name. According to this regulation, it would have been no problem to number the second starship Enterprise as NCC-1701 after the first one had been destroyed in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock". This points at a change in the registry scheme at about the time when the Excelsior was commissioned. It is possible that a registry is assigned to a vessel as soon as it is ordered by Starfleet or construction begins at the fleet yards. This could be the reason why the U.S.S. Bradbury NX-72307 has a higher number than the U.S.S. Sutherland NCC-72015 that was featured in a later episode as a newly commissioned ship. It could even explain the NX-59650 of the U.S.S. Prometheus being completely out of range for a brand new ship. With the exception of this vessel, however, the given registries for new ships do increase monotonically, although the time for their development and construction may vary considerably. Conclusion Summarizing, the registries do only roughly correspond with the age of the ship. None of the various theories covers all of the inconsistencies, so it should be accepted that ships are sometimes arbitrarily numbered. Real-world numbering systems like on passports or car number plates are not based on a perfectly consistent system either. In my view it is a stretch if fans speculate too much about registry oddities that they would easily accept in the real world. www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/registries.htm
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on May 11, 2006 23:22:15 GMT -6
Starship Class Inconsistencies
Lifeboats on 23rd century ships There is nothing visible on the hull of the Constitution class refit that could be particularly interpreted as lifeboat hatches. The same goes for other ship types of the mid and late 23rd century, like Excelsior and Oberth. This may be the reason why the TNG Technical Manual states that ASRVs, as they can be found on the Galaxy class, were not introduced prior to 2337, namely on the Renaissance-class U.S.S. Hokkaido. But this mention could specifically refer to this new type of autonomous escape pods, rather than lifeboats in general, which should exist much longer.
Actually, there is canon evidence about lifeboats on the freshly refitted Enterprise in "Star Trek I". Just after Kirk has stepped out of the airlock, the view of the cargo area shows a door labeled "lifeboats" on one side. These lifeboats would be located in the side wall of the engineering hull. These lifeboats are visible in the engineering hull of the refitted Enterprise on a cross-section that was printed in magazines at the occasion of TMP. Another, much more prominent mention of lifeboats comes from the Kobayashi Maru simulation in "Star Trek II" when Saavik orders the crew to abandon ship. The Star Trek Encyclopedia III depicts a label from the Enterprise-A with emergency evac instructions, mentioning lifeboats. Evidence about lifeboats on the Enterprise-B comes from the MSD in "Star Trek: Generations". There are several small hatches on the saucer labeled "Life boat hatch". These do not necessarily match with hull plates, but we could imagine that the lifeboats, on both ship types, are hidden underneath break-away plates like on the Defiant too (DS9: "Valiant", "The Changing Face of Evil"). Although it seems too complicated to blow away a piece of the hull instead of simply opening a hatch, we can accept this if the lifeboats are not supposed to rejoin the ship.
In this light, it is safe to say that there must be lifeboats on the Constitution refit and Excelsior refit and probably on other 23rd century starships too. We also know that starships of the Oberth class (TNG: "The Pegasus"), Miranda class (DS9: "Emissary") and Constellation class (TNG: "The Battle") have lifeboats in the 24th century. There is no reason to assume that these were not aboard when the ships were commissioned, especially since their outer appearance has not changed. Finally, T'Pol negates Hoshi's and Malcolm's assumption that the crew of the Klingon Raptor class in ENT: "Sleeping Dogs" could have left the ship, as Klingon ships are not supposed to have lifeboats (This obviously changes until the 24th century, when Worf survives the destruction of the IKS Koraga in a lifeboat in DS9: "Penumbra"). Conversely, we can conclude that Earth and Vulcan ships of the 22nd century do have lifeboats.
Enterprise-A: 78 decks? Kirk and McCoy take the "lift" (Spock with rocket boots) inside the turbolift shaft in "Star Trek V". While they are climbing, we see them rapidly passing sequential deck numbers. But something's very strange about them - they count upwards, unlike on any other Federation ship. And near the top, the three are passing a label "Deck 78", although the ship has only 21 decks (perhaps 23, depending on the source). So do we need to take into account these scene from "Star Trek V"? Does it even supersede everything that we have ever learned about the design and sizes of Federation ships? Certainly not. Fans have made up weird explanations, for instance that a robot mislabeled the interior of the shaft or something like that. But maybe we should just take it as what it is - an incredibly pathetic attempt to make the turboboot ride more exciting. Purportedly Shatner himself insisted that there be more than 70 decks on the ship, against everyone's advice. So it does not really deserve our attention. Let's simply ignore the wrong numbers.
Constitution inflation In TOS the only Federation starship class seems to be the omnipresent Constitution or "Starship class". It is obvious that the small budget for visual effects in the 1960's did not allow to build a lot of different models. However, it would not have been necessary to classify virtually all ships that were only mentioned or listed in TOS as Constitution class too, as done in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. The problem becomes worse considering that Kirk said that there are "only twelve of them" in TOS: "Tomorrow is Yesterday". It seems dubious that the Enterprise should encounter virtually all of her classmates, but very few Federation ships of different types - unless Starfleet really has that few other ships.
Which was first, Miranda or Constitution refit? These two ship classes have the same warp nacelles and largely the same saucer, whereas the upgraded Constitution retains virtually no components of the original Constitution. It is obvious that the Miranda and Constitution refit are from the same design era, but which of them came first? The Constitution refit was developed in the late 2260's. It is not clear whether the Enterprise was the first Constitution-class ship to be rebuilt; anyway, the refitting of the Enterprise began after the five-year mission in 2269 and was completed in 2271. The Miranda was first seen in "Star Trek II" (2285). There is no reason to assume that the ship was necessarily brand new at that time. Registries of TOS and movie ships are often inconclusive, nevertheless, the NCC-1864 of the U.S.S. Reliant suggests that it was built some time between NCC-1701 (2245) and NCC-2000 (2285). One more class that should be included into these considerations is the Constellation, since the saucer top and bottom and the nacelles are very similar. We know the registry NX/NCC-1974 of the U.S.S. Constellation from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and that the U.S.S. Hathaway NCC-2593 was about 80 years old as of 2365 (TNG: "Peak Performance"). This puts the Constellation class into the 2270's. Given these facts, there are three possibilities:
1. The Miranda as we know her might be already a refit, and there would be an unseen "TOS-style" Miranda. In this case Miranda and Constitution would have been further developed in parallel, and there would be no need to explain if and which of them came first. The Constellation would be a "cheap" new class profiting from the experiences with the Miranda and the Constitution. The explanation, however, that Miranda-class ships are not only in use but still being built in the 24th century would be rendered much more difficult if the basic design is that old.
2. The Reliant may have been commissioned in the 2260's and would then predate the Constitution refit. Perhaps the nacelle construction of the Miranda proved good and was adopted for the other classes. The outer appearance of the extended saucer of the Constitution refit would only "imitate" the Miranda style, while the saucer core would be still from the original Constitution - which is necessary to justify that the refitted Enterprise is still Kirk's old Enterprise. In this case the Constellation would seem much like a larger and more powerful version of the Miranda.
3. If the Constitution refit was first, it would seem that the Miranda uses re-arranged parts, in particular the nacelles. Nevertheless, the saucer would be rather a completely new construction, considering that there is an angular saucer extension and that the warp core must be inside the saucer. In this case, the Constellation would have been developed in parallel to the Miranda. It is not really a problem, but worth the question why the design of the Miranda as a new class has taken the same direction as that of the Constitution refit, although the conditions should have been considerably different.
I wouldn't necessarily rule out the existence of a "TOS Miranda" (1.), but 2. and 3. seem more plausible, with slight advantages for 2., since a refit is more likely to use components of a new class than vice versa.
In an article about the Constellation in Star Trek: The Magazine, Rick Sternbach conjectures that there was indeed no "TOS Miranda", albeit only in a side note. He writes: "When the Miranda and Soyuz classes also became major out growths of the refit program, the production lines expanded, ultimately involving a total of three Starfleet yards." After there had been a misunderstanding about this statement, Rick confirmed in an e-mail to Kris Olinger that this statement really referred to the Constitution refit program, so Miranda and Soyuz are new classes.
The Enterprise Refit of 2271
Decommission date of the Constitution Was the Constitution class retired towards the end of the 23rd century, or are ships of this class in service even as of 2366? Here are the facts:
We know that the Enterprise-A was replaced by a new ship, the Enterprise-B of the Excelsior class, in 2293. The Enterprise-A was either built or completely refitted and renamed in 2286, so it would be only seven years old by then. Why should Starfleet retire a new ship? Was it because of the battle damage? Or was the complete class scheduled for retirement in 2293? Concerning the retirement order at the end of Star Trek VI, read here.
The original U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 entered service in 2245 (Star Trek Encyclopedia). Unless we make up a "pre-history" to explain the low registries of some ships of this class, she would be the second ship just after the U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700. Considering that the Galaxy class is supposed to last 100 years (TNG Technical Manual), an overall lifetime of 50 years for all ships of the Constitution class doesn't seem to be very long, especially since we can assume that many ships have undergone a complete refit like the Enterprise. Moreover, the Miranda and Constellation whose basic components are apparently the same as of the Constitution refit, have been in service for more than 80 years, so why shouldn't the Constitution too?
When Picard meets Scotty on the recreated bridge of the original Enterprise (TNG: "Relics"), he says that "one like this is in the Fleet Museum". This doesn't necessarily imply that the ship in the museum is the only one left. But if there were any more of them, wouldn't Picard rather mention that there are Constitution-class ships still in service, to make Scotty feel better? On the other hand, "one like this" might specifically refer to the original configuration Constitution, of which there is only the one in the museum, whereas several of the less interesting (to Scotty) refitted ships might be in surplus depots or perhaps even in active service.
The starship debris at Wolf 359 (TNG: "Best of Both Worlds") shows a Constitution secondary hull and a saucer which is probably the one of the Enterprise blown up in "Star Trek III". At least the secondary hull with its typical vat shape and the six large windows can be clearly identified. Unless we invent a new class which has the same old secondary hull but is for some reason still in service, there must have been at least one Constitution-class ship at Wolf 359, and obviously this can't have been the museum ship mentioned in "Relics", two years later.
Summarizing, there are advantages for the assumption that the Constitution class is still in service as of 2366. The screen evidence in BoBW is too obvious to be ignored. Considering how dominant the Constitution class was in TOS, it is plausible that this class should have a very long service time, like the Miranda, Constellation, Oberth and Excelsior too. Picard's statement in "Relics" is easy to interpret as the ship in the museum could be the last existing ship in the original configuration. The only remaining problem is that the Enterprise-A was retired before her time.
Early decommissioning of the Soyuz Miranda-class starships are still in use in the 24th century, some of them with high registries as e.g. the second Saratoga NCC-31911. It is unlikely that there are on one hand dozens of different starship classes at a time, and on the other hand one of them survives several generations of other designs. If we nevertheless suppose it is customary to use a design for more than 100 years, why was the Soyuz class that seems to be a further development of the Miranda taken out of service more than 80 years before? The four striking sensor pods and the lack of the weapon rollbar suggest that the purpose of the Soyuz is significantly different than that of the Miranda. It is possible that the Soyuz was a specialized type of which only a few were developed for missions like border control. When the Soyuz class was not needed any longer, they might have been retrofitted to standard Miranda-class ships.
Age of the Oberth class If registries are strictly chronological, the U.S.S. Copernicus NCC-623 and U.S.S. Grissom NCC-638 suggest that these ships of the Oberth class were already in service in the 22nd century. In this case they would have been already 100 years old when they were still in service (and in good shape) in the late 23rd century. Their rather "modern" appearance (similar to the Excelsior) might be explained in that they had been completely rebuilt towards the end of the 23rd century. In the 24th century, however, the Oberth class was not only still in use, but even new ships were commissioned, such as the U.S.S. Cochrane NCC-59318. This doesn't make any sense, considering that a refit is something different than a new build. 80-year-old plans for an upgrade of a 180-year-old ship are useless if Starfleet wants to build new ships. Consequently, the Oberth must have been commissioned not before the middle of the 23rd century, already with the appearance we know.
Excelsior class and transwarp drive It seems to be commonly accepted that the transwarp experiment on the Excelsior NX-2000 failed, and that the ship was later equipped with a conventional propulsion system. On the other hand, the only evidence for that can be found in the TNGTM where it is stated that the experiment in the 2280's failed, obviously referring to the Excelsior: "While the attempt to surpass the primary warp field efficiency barrier with the Transwarp Development Project in the early 2280s proved unsuccessful...". But interestingly, none of the visible modifications to the studio miniature from NX-2000 to NCC-2000 concern the propulsion system.
There are two other reasons why a failure of a revolutionary new drive system would be implausible. Firstly, the word "transwarp" may be misleading, as it doesn't necessarily denote a specific technology, but maybe rather any attempt to overcome the limitations of Starfleet's current warp drive. It better wouldn't have much to do with transwarp as employed by the Borg or the Voth, technologies that are obviously far ahead of Starfleet's capabilities during the late 23rd century. If Starfleet's transwarp is a similar technology though, and the Excelsior was already using it, it seems unlikely that Starfleet would give this promising project up and not resume the research for many decades. Secondly, it is strange that an experimental ship, after its failure, would become the prototype of one of Starfleet's most successful ship classes that would be built in numbers of hundreds for several decades. It would fit better if the Excelsior had always been planned to be built in a large scale.
In this light it is absolutely possible that what has been dubbed "transwarp" in the beginning is actually the type of warp drive in use on all ships since the Excelsior. As it is with many innovations, a new name for it would not come in use if it's not radically different than the old technology. It would even help to explain why the warp scale was changed some time between TOS and TNG. If the function principle of new warp (transwarp) is somewhat different, it may require that all high speeds must be achieved with warp factors between 9 and 10. On the other hand, we do have the clear statement in the TNGTM, so the Excelsior's transwarp must be something essentially new, although probably not as far evolved as Borg transwarp.
Size of the Excelsior Class
Construction time of the Excelsior Ships of the Excelsior class are still in use as of 2376, they are even the backbone of Starfleet, but for how long have they been built? Has Starfleet even commissioned new ships of this class only recently? There are a few arguments supporting this suggestion.
1. The registry of the U.S.S. Melbourne is NCC-62043, as could be clearly seen in DS9: "Emissary". While the actual reason for the high number is that it was originally supposed to be a Nebula-class ship in BoBW, this points to a commissioning date in the 2350's or 2360's. The second highest known batch of numbers is in the 2340's and therefore about 20 years earlier.
2. The U.S.S. Farragut NCC-60597 (Nebula class) was destroyed in DS9: "Nor the Battle to the Strong". In DS9: "Chrysalis", however, there is a U.S.S. Farragut again, and the Star Trek Encyclopedia III claims that the Excelsior class seen in the episode is actually this ship. The speculation given there, however, is that the Excelsior-class Farragut "was an older ship that had predated the Nebula-class vessel and had been decommissioned, but was pressed back into service during the Dominion war after the destruction of the Nebula-class ship".
3. There were a few Excelsior-class ships in drydocks at Utopia Planitia in VOY: "Relativity", so they might still be under construction as of 2371.
Refuting the last argument is relatively easy, since there is no reason why Utopia Planitia should exclusively build new ships. The shown Excelsior-class ships may easily be there for repairs or upgrades. Moreover, one registry is visible as "NCC-42111", which is unlikely to belong to a new ship as of 2371. It is the U.S.S. Frederickson that will take part in the Dominion War a few years later (DS9: "Behind the Lines").
As for argument #2, I assume that the Excelsior-class ship at DS9 was actually supposed to be the U.S.S. Farragut, and it was just insufficient research that there is no continuity to the Nebula-class ship of the same name. Okuda found a very good explanation for the Encyclopedia, while the suggestion that the ship is new or, as has been speculated too, renamed to Farragut, seems less plausible. Anyway, despite Okuda's "secondary canon" explanation the ship seen in the episode could be anything else, after all there were supposed to be dozens of ships (the Ninth Fleet) close to the station at that time.
The toughest case is the U.S.S. Melbourne whose registry could be clearly identified. While the registry of the U.S.S. Zhukov NCC-62136 (whose number was mislabeled and should have been NCC-26136) is already a problem, why should a ship of the far older Excelsior class be built so late, and why should it be the apparently only one? Basically, it's the same problem as with the new Oberths discussed above. One theory is that the ship might have been mothballed, but recommissioned with a new number in the 2350's or 2360's. Another idea is that the ship might have been built from still available components, maybe as a training for the ship yards or as a tradition ship of Starfleet, much like sailing ships in modern navies.
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on May 11, 2006 23:22:42 GMT -6
Rarity of the Excelsior refit The Enterprise-B seems to be the first upgraded Excelsior class starship. Almost all later Excelsior starships have the same outer appearance as the original Excelsior, as if the refit would have failed. Even the fleet scenes in the Dominion War don't show any refitted Excelsior. So why is there a single other refitted Excelsior, the Lakota NCC-42768, after 80 years? 1. It is possible that there are more ships like the Enterprise-B or the Lakota which were occasionally built with special additional equipment. They are rare compared to the standard Excelsior of which there might be over a hundred ships or more. 2. There are no other refitted Excelsiors indeed. The Lakota is an experimental upgrade of the Excelsior class which only has the same or similar hull extensions, but completely new technology. 3. The Lakota is actually the very same ship as the Enterprise NCC-1701-B. At some time between 2310 and 2330, Starfleet may have decided to transfer the name to a newer ship, namely the Ambassador-class Enterprise NCC-1701-C, requiring to rename the Enterprise-B. Only the registry NCC-42768 would be a tad too high if the Lakota is in fact the Enterprise-B, but maybe the ship was temporarily retired and later reactivated. Number of Galaxy-class ships Gene Roddenberry once suggested that there should be only six starships of the Galaxy class (because he couldn't imagine that Starfleet would build more of these huge vessels). The TNG Technical Manual takes this statement into account. According to the book only six of them were built at first, plus six additional spaceframes which remained incomplete as of 2368 -- corresponding to the fifth season of TNG when the TNGTM was published. On the other hand, so many ships are known by name or were even seen at a time that there should be more than twelve Galaxy-class ships altogether. Until 2371, three of the six original ships were already lost: the U.S.S. Yamato NCC-71807 in TNG: "Contagion", the U.S.S. Odyssey NCC-71832 in DS9: "The Jem'Hadar" and the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D in "Star Trek: Generations". With the U.S.S. Galaxy NCC-70637 as seen in the battle at Chin'toka in 2374 (DS9: "Tears of the Prophets") and the U.S.S. Challenger NCC-71099 as seen in VOY: "Timeless" two of the three remaining ships are already known. The Challenger most likely belongs to this first batch because the registry is lower than the Yamato's. Apart from these the names of three more Galaxy-class ships are known. The U.S.S. Venture NCC-71854 arrived as a reinforcement in DS9: "The Way of the Warrior". It is interesting to note that the Venture is already a class variant, sporting additional structures, probably phaser strips, on the warp nacelles. The U.S.S. Magellan was mentioned as the lead ship of a group that could break through the Dominion lines in DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels", and a Galaxy-class vessel was shown - albeit stock footage from the above arrival of the Venture. The U.S.S. Trinculo NCC-71867 was not actually mentioned, but a studio miniature with this name and number was shown on exhibitions. It is absolutely possible that the so-labeled model was used in one or more DS9 episodes. Given the above ship appearances, it is quite obvious that at least some of the six remaining spaceframes must have been activated until 2374. Several Dominion War episodes feature a large number of unnamed Galaxy-class ships seen on screen, most notably DS9: "Favor the Bold" and "Sacrifice of Angels" where several times three or four of them could be seen at once. In addition, two "Galaxy wings" were mentioned as subdivisions of the Starfleet forces. Up to four ships of the class were also visible in VOY: "Endgame". Given these facts, it is not very likely that only twelve ships were built altogether, even if we should assume that all of the remaining nine ships participated in each of the major battles. Although it may have taken more than a decade to build the first twelve ships, there is no reason to believe that a once established design couldn't be built faster, in a six-year period from 2368 to 2374. Since the according section in the TNGTM describes the construction history of the class, it may be justified to presume that it was decided to eventually build more than twelve ships even prior to 2368. Actually, there seemed to be a Galaxy class under construction at Utopia Planitia and the outer hull largely completed in 2371 (VOY: "Relativity"). Another argument for a higher number than twelve is that two Galaxy-class ships shown in DS9: "Favor the Bold" seem to have a darker neck than other ships of the class, which points to still another variant and to another batch of vessels apart from the original six (including Galaxy, Yamato, Enterprise, Challenger, Odyssey) and the possibly mothballed spaceframes (including Venture and Magellan). Finally, although I firmly believe that much of the starship section in the DS9TM including the "kitbash" theory is wrong, the idea that new ships were commissioned with only one third of their internal volume filled makes sense in particular for the large Galaxy class. Omitting most of the science labs and crew quarters might shorten the building time considerably. Size of the Sydney class The model of the U.S.S. Jenolan in TNG: "Relics" is a redress of the "executive shuttle" used in "Star Trek VI". This is why the Star Trek Encyclopedia claims that the Sydney class is a "small starship resembling a runabout" and that "some Sydney-class starships were built without warp drive, intended for use as a large shuttlecraft". This is nonsense. The original shuttle had only one deck, and a length of about 25m. A look at the photo of the Sydney-class U.S.S. Jenolan (labeled as "Jenolin") reveals that not only a Constitution-style warp nacelle, but also a small bridge dome and several rows of windows were added to the model. Owing to the rather small size of the model, the additional parts were taken from an AMT model. It is absolutely safe to say that the Sydney is an independent and much larger ship. Based on the known size of the nacelles, the Sydney class must be around 235m long. Ironically, the Fact Files continue with the Sydney-shuttle idea, but show two drawings of the Sydney class and the orbital shuttle whose basic shapes couldn't be more different although they are actually the same. The upside-down Sydney In DS9: "Accession", "Trials and Tribble-ations" (when Dulmer and Lucsly arrive) and in "Chrysalis" a Sydney-class transport docks to the station upside down, contrary to all other known starships. Why? It probably didn't have to do with the above runabout theory since the ship appeared to be at least 100m long, already much too large for a runabout. It might have been intended to show a different ship class than the Sydney, however, there is no reason why this old class shouldn't be still in service, considering that Mirandas are still around too. I think since it could be clearly identified there is no reason to assume that it isn't a Sydney class, and for some weird reason it had to dock upside down. www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ship_classes.htm
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on May 11, 2006 23:25:32 GMT -6
The "Akiraprise" Design
The first pictures of Enterprise NX-01 from the TV Guide were published in the web on Sunday, July 8th, two months before the series went on air. My immediate thought was "They plagiarized the Akira!" when I saw the top view of the NX-01. After looking at the ship from different angles, it is obvious that the NX-01 is not the blatant rip-off that I first assumed it was, but it is still lacking both the required distinctiveness for the protagonist of a multi-million dollar franchise and, in a fictional sense, the look of a time 100 years before the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701.
This article critically discusses the hull design of the "Akiraprise". Since I first published my views on the design, I have received hundreds of comments, and most of them were either very positive or very negative. My opinion was even quoted in a column in Entertainment Weekly. I have decided to change the overall tone of this article that used to be very polemic at first. My apologies to the people who make Enterprise and who may have seen my criticism of their work as a personal insult. I think I have very good points why the ship is not what it should have been, and I think I don't need drastic language to emphasize that.
Enterprise NX-01 and the Akira
The mere look of a Star Trek starship model or any other prop may not be as essential as the quality of the stories, but especially Enterprise NX-01 as a vessel which we were supposed to see through prospective seven seasons should have been something special and unique. I don't think that the overall exterior of the ship fulfills this requirement, at least not for fans who are remotely familiar with Star Trek ship designs.
While they look considerably different from other angles, the top views of Enterprise NX-01 and the Akira class closely resemble each other like no other two vessels of the Star Trek Universe. It is undeniable that Enterprise NX-01 was more than only inspired by the Akira class. The overall proportions, the shape of the saucer (the one of the Akira being slightly more elliptical), the arrangement of the double hulls and nacelle pylons, everything is much the same as on the Akira. This is even more surprising as the pylon assemblies of the two ships look very different in a side view. It looks like the Akira was taken, the twin hulls bent down, and the nacelle pylons bent up, while retaining their basic shapes. We may ask already now why two ships of very different eras (more than 200 years apart) and of very different sizes (Akira: 440m, NX-01: 225m) are that much alike.
It has been objected that all the Enterprises from the original NCC-1701 to the NCC-1701-E share common design characteristics as well, namely a saucer-neck-engineering-nacelles-up configuration, and that this might be the same with the NX-01 and the Akira. There are, however, considerable differences between all of these Enterprises and their respective successors. The Enterprise-A (Constitution refit) and the Enterprise-B (Excelsior class), for instance, have very few features in common except for the very basic hull arrangement. The hull shapes and proportions are very dissimilar, and the sleeker look of the newer ship points to a more advanced technology. Even the Enterprise-C (Ambassador class) and Enterprise-D (Galaxy class) which are sometimes said to be much alike, share rather few features. Again, the proportions are very different and we can easily tell which of the two ships is the more advanced one. The NX-01 and the Akira, although the nacelle pylons are pointing in different directions, resemble one another much more than any two of the Enterprises. This would be still no problem to explain if they were ships of the same era, but they are supposed to be 200 years and several design generations apart.
Enterprise NX-01 fortunately has small windows, no visible lifeboats, no phaser strips and no transporter emitters, just as we know it from the original Enterprise NCC-1701 and should expect from a ship of the 22nd century too. Still, several details are the same as on the Akira, although they are neither the same technology nor the same size, and not even serve the same function. The way the catamaran hulls run into the saucer, the location of the weapons pod between the twin hulls, the locations of the four impulse engines, the raised rectangular area between the twin hulls and even the characteristic indentation in the saucer bow are the same as on the Akira. It looks like this all was retained from the very first approach to convert the Akira design to the NX-01. There is no visible evolution of the design. The silliest common feature is the strange hatch on the top of each catamaran hull. It is supposed to be a part of the plasma supercharger of NX-01, something that the Akira almost certainly doesn't have. Still, it looks exactly the same as on the Akira.
"V'gerprise"
Summarizing, the similarities between the two ships are just too obvious to deny. Considering that even many insignificant ships that appeared somewhere in the background were given a very distinctive look, it is a shame that this wasn't possible or wasn't deemed useful for the vessel that is going to represent Star Trek for the next seven years. Doug Drexler's detail work on the NX-01 is terrific and it features some original ideas, but I would have expected just the same from the overall shape.
It may have been a "political" decision to go with the Akira because it is a proven fan favorite. As John Eaves as well as Rick Berman pointed out, the NX-01 was designed consciously with the Akira in mind. But ironically, most fans are not supposed to care about starship design and to even know the Akira, which is how the design is often defended. So should the few(?) Akira fans be glad that their ship was modified and transferred to the 22nd century? If they had done the same based on a more prominent ship, let's say U.S.S. Voyager, wouldn't it be seen as justified if the fans protested against it? If it was decided at one point to take the Akira as a basis, why is the final result still so similar to the starting point? Why wasn't much more changed about the proportions? Why has the NX-01 even several details that are the same as on the Akira? Why has the NX-01 hardly any unique design features, a few things that can't be found on other (newer) ships? Why is virtually every older technology that could have made the ship look different (like the shuttle drop bay, the grappler, the sensors or the phase weapons) a hidden feature?
I firmly believe that, without any additional efforts, a really original ship with a cool old-style look could have been created remotely based on the Akira. This is proven by many alternative fan designs that take the design away from the Akira. Agreed, they are all not as detailed by far as the actual NX-01, but wouldn't they have made better starting points?
Enterprise NX-01 and the Design Lineage
We can't tell exactly how a ship from the 22nd century has to look (and I never claimed that I knew). Designing a ship looking "more primitive than the NCC-1701" wouldn't have worked for two reasons. For once, the original Enterprise largely lacked surface details - because of the limited budget and modeling techniques, but also because of Matt Jefferies' idea of having everything easily accessible inside the ship's hull. There would have been no point in designing a still less detailed model for Enterprise. The second reason is that, from the 22nd to the 24th century, starship designs haven't necessarily evolved from clumsy boxes to always sleeker and more streamlined designs. On the other hand, the series was consciously conceived as a prequel, and this setting would have required a less advanced look and feel of the ship (like of all other technology too) which the overall design of NX-01 doesn't have.
Even if it is only a subjective impression, Enterprise NX-01 looks more advanced than the Daedalus and still more recent than the original Constitution, a ship 100 years younger than the NX-01. Maybe we may have to abandon the Daedalus class which was never shown as the real vessel but only as a model in Sisko's ready room (although I know I won't do that). But the problem of reconciling Enterprise NX-01 with the Enterprise NCC-1701 remains. If we don't look closely, NX-01 is a ship of the 24th century - even if we completely ignore the similarity to the Akira. At the first glance, just the old-style nacelles are a nice concession to the 22nd century - actually one of the few things I like about the overall design. Aside from that, only the metallic deflector dish and the small windows suggest that this is supposed to be an old ship.
Matt Jefferies designed the NCC-1701 with the idea that all equipment should be accessible from inside the ship, for it would be complicated or dangerous to service or swap out parts when working in spacesuits. This is why his creation is so smooth and has very few hull details. Later ships, beginning with Andrew Probert's revamp of the Enterprise, have pronounced hull plating and/or a deflector grid, as well as thrusters, phaser emitters, photon torpedo tubes, sensor pallets, plasma vents and (since the Ambassador) visible lifeboats. It is obvious that all these details are supposed to make the ships look more technical, and more credible when visual effects are created. What bothers me about NX-01 in this respect is that the ship has rather the typical hull details of the TNG era ships than of TOS, including an "Aztec pattern" of the hull plating. We may claim that the Enterprise NCC-1701 had at least part of these hull details too, only that the budget in the 60s didn't allow to show them. I wouldn't have expected NX-01 to look as smooth as the NCC-1701 and I don't want to go back to the visual effects of the 60s. The NX-01 needs the details. But rather than the TNG style, it should have been given a coarse and rather industrial look with gadgets attached to the hull - suggesting that Jefferies' idea of having everything inside the hull would be developed for future ships. Anything visually different from the established Starfleet look would have suited NX-01 better, but the ancient technology is mostly hidden behind hatches.
The cone-shaped center of the saucer bottom looks a lot like on the good old Enterprise NCC-1701, while the panels on the bottom are a bit reminiscent of the Enterprise-E (Sovereign class). The saucer edge resembles that of the Excelsior (or Enterprise-B) a lot. This doesn't compensate for the top view showing an Akira class. On the contrary, it causes even some more trouble. I have no objection to using several elements from other ships when designing a new one, but such "tips of the hat" are out of place when designing something that is supposed to predate everything we have seen yet. Instead of fitting the ship into the design lineage, this screws the lineage up aside from its overall too modern look.
Summarizing, the ship looks as if it has come 200 years from the future. The hull shape is essentially that of a Starfleet ship of the 24th century, there was hardly any effort to design something visually different. It appears to me as a ship from the 24th century that has been retrofitted with a golden deflector dish and old-style nacelles - and old-style letters, for those who insist on mentioning them. Just like fitting a modern car with a chrome bumper and white sidewall tires. We could make up explanations why the general design of ships went from the streamlined but detailed 22nd century style over the clumsy but even 23rd century look back to the same streamlined and detailed shapes in the 24th century. But wouldn't it be better if we could see at the first glance that this is an old ship? At least the details of NX-01 were retro-engineered, but why is most "old" technology hidden behind a hatch? The "Easter Eggs", details that were taken from other Enterprises, are counterproductive in this respect as well - although they add at least some more diversity to the ship.
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on May 11, 2006 23:26:02 GMT -6
Examples of plagiarism and of retro look "Retro look" is a word that may explain why the Akira and the NX-01 look so much alike, or better, why the Akira looks a lot like the old NX-01 - although we must assume that their technologies are woefully different. But what is retro look about? It is an attempt by a company to sell their products better by making them look like classics. So, if we go with the "retro look" explanation, we would have to defend why 24th century fleet yard engineers pick up the style of the 22nd century. Some cars have a deliberate retro look, just like the BMW Z8 (1999) imitates the classic BMW 507 from the 50's. The difference to starships is that cars are not entirely designed by engineers, but follow certain fashions, while starships (like airplanes, most sea ships or military vehicles) are just not supposed to be stylish. If they happen to look stylish this is mostly because good engineering follows simple rules, natural and man-made. The man-made rules are subject to change as the technology is refined, dictating a different look for a new generation of designs. So if a 24th century starship (Akira) looks a lot like a 22nd century starship (Enterprise NX-01), it must be rather out of a fashion than a coincidence. But it is actually still worse, since we know how well the Akira fits into the 2360s (note the many similarities to the Galaxy class). This is why the Akira can't be a rehash. NX-01 is the rehash. And please spare me of silly time travel explanations along the lines that Cochrane was inspired by looking at the cool Enterprise-E through the telescope and tried to make his vessels look like that! Enterprise NX-01 and the Fans Well, I know that there are many fans who actually like the new ship for its cool look, but unlike it may be the case with other starship designs I don't think it's so much a matter of taste here. Nothing in the Star Trek Universe can be seen isolated from everything else. The design doesn't work out technically and historically, and I don't see what it would change if it looked good. As I said above, people in the 50's would notice that a "retro" BMW Z8 doesn't belong there, and to me and many other fans the NX-01 is just as alien in the 22nd century when Earth's space technology is still at its beginning. There are also some fans who just don't care about starship designs or about technology altogether. Star Trek, however, is a sci-fi show in which the technology usually plays a major role, and for this matter I think it requires at least a basic plausibility and continuity which Enterprise NX-01 with its too modern look and too advanced capabilities may not have. As a ship which is probably designed with the main objective of looking cool, NX-01 may appeal to younger fans, to those who don't know that much of TNG, DS9 or Voyager and much less of TOS. I am missing the respect to what has been established before in the ship design as well as the technological continuity, and I'm not referring to superficial details like flip-chirp communicators or "Easter Eggs" in the look of the NX-01 that create a pseudo-continuity. Rick Berman himself said about this issue: "The terrific thing about this for longtime fans is that they'll get to see the development of all the technological gadgetry and capabilities that have become part of the Trek mythos. They'll see them in their infant, trial-and-error stages, before they end up being what we know them to be." He probably meant something different than actual long-time fans expected to see in the show. The producers are continuing technology-wise in the 24th century, because they are not ready or not willing to do it differently, and because a starship without transporter, subspace communication or FTL sensors wouldn't be very exciting. Most concessions to the 22nd century are only superficial, like the often quoted push-button interfaces, the old-style nacelles and some other retro-engineered features that only look a bit older but are essentially as powerful as in the 24th century. With most devices there is not the development Berman promised, and this scares away especially long-time fans. I know of many of them that they are annoyed, and several of them are not watching the series. My Conclusion I myself don't think that Enterprise is too bad. The series has its share of good stories, and the impact of the too advanced technology is not quite as severe as I anticipated. Nevertheless, the series doesn't have the potential to become my favorite, and this is at least in part because of the look of the NX-01. I have come to appreciate the detail work that Doug Drexler has invested to create a both technically sound and esthetically pleasing ship. The overall look, however, is something that I can hardly accept. Aside from all arguments about the lack of originality, about fictional technology and the design lineage, I am sure that a ship could have been designed that would have pleased everyone - from the young fan boys to the technology buffs. www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/enterprise_design_comment.htm
|
|
|
Post by earthcrusher on May 13, 2006 13:14:37 GMT -6
it actually amazes me how much time and thought goes into fantasy. although i like star trek its not reality- but so much thought has been put in every detail. ah, never mind.
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on Jul 18, 2006 20:25:36 GMT -6
Star Trek has always been more 'realistic' than Star Wars.
|
|
|
Post by earthcrusher on Jul 25, 2006 13:52:25 GMT -6
oh by far i would agree on that point still if all this energy could be focused on other projects wed all be millioniares
|
|
|
Post by earthcrusher on Mar 24, 2007 14:55:40 GMT -6
WOW This site hasnt had a post in 8 months!!!
|
|
Niemz
Fleet Admiral
[M:-817]
"If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'" -- Spock
Posts: 2,282
|
Post by Niemz on Mar 26, 2007 21:09:12 GMT -6
Because we need a few more active members to get things hoppin!
|
|
|
Post by earthcrusher on Mar 28, 2007 1:41:12 GMT -6
Thats your job there host! Its your party!
|
|
Lexi
Lieutenant Commander
[M:0]
Posts: 192
|
Post by Lexi on Jun 19, 2008 23:16:34 GMT -6
You have to put thought and effort in to fantasy writing! Otherwise there'll be inconsistencies and look where that gets you xD
But just writing blindly never makes me as satisfied as actually thinking the universe through. It's the same as being plunged into an unfamiliar and jargon-y universe by a book, except you're doing it to yourself.
|
|