ATTN DAVID STIPES: USS Hood's NCC # oddity (Tears of the Prophets)
Dwight Williams
Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
battle of Chin'toka.
DO I get the Trek equivalent of a "No-prize"?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society
Dwight Williams
Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
>>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
>>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
>>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
>>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
>>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
>>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>>
>>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
>>battle of Chin'toka.
>>
>>DO I get the Trek equivalent of a "No-prize"?
>
> Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
> ones.
I assume that doesn't mean they weren't there, just out of camera "frame".
That *was* a largish engagement, IMHO.
Timo S Saloniemi
In article <brianb1-0107...@cx31002-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com> bri...@home.com (Brian Barjenbruch) writes:
>>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
>>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
>>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
>>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
>>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
>>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>>
>>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
>>battle of Chin'toka.
>Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
>Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
>ones.
Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
simple flybys could be done.
Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
Timo Saloniemi
Chris Wagner
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
ships???
There is no way I would serve on a Miranda class in combat. Its almost
like throwing your life away. I don't know if one could even take out a
BOP, let alone a Jem Hadar fighter. I can see them being effective in
squadrons, say a minimum of six acting together, but I have never seen
this. They always act independantly just like a Galaxy class, which is
about *10 times* bigger.
Speaking of Galaxy's, do these ships kick ass or what? I've never seen
one get destroyed or even take major damage. Hell I be no Galaxy class
ship has been lost in the war at all! This assumes of course that they
have dropped the ridiculous priority of high tech and efficiency over
reliability and survivability. Heck if you even coughed on the
starboard power coupling of the E-D it would explode. And the warp core
breeched probably no less than 10 times in 7 years. These new Galaxy's
are what they were meant to be. Bad Asses.
If Starfleet used any sane fleet operations, the primary ship would be
the Ambassador class, being supported by New Orleans and Akiras. The
Galaxy would be the new ship supplanting the Ambassadors and the
Excelsiors would be the frigates. There would be no Miranda's in
combat.
Comments? Observations?
--
I am Billgatus of Borg. You will be assimilated.
Resistance is fut -GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT in BORG.EXE-
Darrell Lawrence
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> In article <brianb1-0107...@cx31002-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com> bri...@home.com (Brian Barjenbruch) writes:
> >>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> >>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> >>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> >>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> >>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> >>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
> >>
> >>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
> >>battle of Chin'toka.
>
> >Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> >Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
> >ones.
>
> Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
> model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
> is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
> for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
> CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
> there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
> simple flybys could be done.
>
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
them.
Darrell Lawrence
A few Galaxy Class ships have gone down in battle.
Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> > Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> > arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> > Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> > is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> > basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> > Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
Paul Cassidy
Chris Wagner wrote in message <359B68...@plebeian.com>...
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
>> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
>> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
>> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
>> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
>> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
Actually, I agree with your point. Some ships could be upgraded, but the
Miranda's just seem to small.
Chris Wagner
Darrell Lawrence wrote:
>
> Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
> at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
> them.
And the Nebulas!! I found it very very odd that there wasn't one Nebula
in the ToP battle.
Darrell Lawrence
At least there was a Nebula Class in Voyager's "Ship in a Bottle" ep.
chasing down the Prometheus *S*.
pwc...@earthlinkno.spamnet
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:
Perhaps, but its still "roomier" than a Defiant.
The reason why there are so many Mirandas and Excelsiors? Maybe they
are actually hold-overs from the long Fed-Klingon hostilities during
Kirk's days and these ships are being pulled out of mothballs?
David Stipes
Dwight Williams wrote:
>
> Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
> > In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> > the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> > the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> > be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> > Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> > happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>
> I suspect "typo"
>
Dwight, you get an "Atta-boy!" :)
David Stipes
David Stipes
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit ones.
There were only regular Excelsior style...no Enterprise B.
David Stipes
David Stipes
Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
> model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
> is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
> for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
> CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
> there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
> simple flybys could be done.
It was more efficient to do all CGI ships. We did not think of modifying
the Excelsior into an Enterprise B.
>
> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
I do not know of a CGI Yeager or "E-B." The Norway needs to be
resurfaced and modified and may be done on later episodes.
David Stipes
>
> Timo Saloniemi
David Stipes
Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>
> Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
> ships???
Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?
David Stipes
David Stipes
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo?
Just an "OOPS"
David Stipes
devi...@ij.net
In article <359CA3...@earthlink.net>,
Hmmm, okay so we know the real reason, now what about the obligatory
explanation answer? Maybe they're actually the same... No, think about it.
This would be a great way to raise moral. Put all the undesirable Star Fleet
personnel on Mirandas, and send them into batter to be trashed. As an added
bonus, it makes officers on other ships feel really good about their chances
of surviving the war. No matter how incompetent the crew their serving with
is, at least they can always be thankful their not on a Miranda class.
"Sisko to decoy wings.... errr... I mean Miranda wings, prepare for full
frontal assault, Galaxy and Defiant wings: we'll try to outflank them by
heading for Risa. We'll be back, honest."
-Bob
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chris Whitehead
LOL!! And of course the lead Miranda ship could be code-named "Pawn
Sacrifice". :)
Methinks the "official" reason for all the Mirandas is that the Feds are
pulling all the old ships out of mothballs due to desperation. I'd bet
even the Constitution-class ships are getting used. (Not that we'll ever
see one...) And Constitutions explode nicely too. :)
--
Chris Whitehead
UBC Computer Engineering Co-op Student
PMC-Sierra Inc. (Product Development)
Tel: (604) 415-6053 Ext. 2043
Chris_W...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca
Chris Wagner
David Stipes wrote:
>
> Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> > I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> > Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> > honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> > They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> > using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
> >
> > ships???
>
> Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?
Er, I don't know about you but I find it disconcerting to see Starfleet
Officers throwing their lives away.
You haven't answered my question yet.
--
You are dead. Cardassia is dead. Your people were doomed from the
moment they attacked us. "Broken Link"
Kroagnon
Chris Wagner wrote in message <359B68...@plebeian.com>...
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
>> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
>> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
>> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
>> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
>> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
Not if you're using them for Kimakaze runs. Can you say "Warp Core Breach"?
Look at the Jem'Hadar fighters against the Klingon ships.
>
>Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
>ships???
>
>There is no way I would serve on a Miranda class in combat. Its almost
>like throwing your life away. I don't know if one could even take out a
>BOP, let alone a Jem Hadar fighter. I can see them being effective in
>squadrons, say a minimum of six acting together, but I have never seen
>this. They always act independantly just like a Galaxy class, which is
>about *10 times* bigger.
>Speaking of Galaxy's, do these ships kick ass or what? I've never seen
>one get destroyed or even take major damage. Hell I be no Galaxy class
>ship has been lost in the war at all! This assumes of course that they
The USS Odyssey was taken out by a Jem'Hadar Kimikaze run in the first DS9
episode involving the Dominion... the Galaxy-class seen in "Tears of the
Prophets" (supposed to be the USS Galaxy) had some major craters drilled
into it while making a pass on a weapons platform...
Looks to me these days that starfleet is giving the order to lower shields
during battle and transferring power to weapons, eh?
AMC
Stephen Sizemore
If there are so many Miranda class starships, why aren't they E-A style
Constitution class ships? I mean there's gotta be a few of 'em left,
they're not that much older than Miranda's.
It would be cool as all hell to see one loaded down with quantum torpedoes
phaser banks!!!
SJohnson
Hey don't change a thing! The 'Miranda'-class are our space-based equivalent of TOS redshirts! And they DO explode nicely! : )
David Stipes wrote:
> Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> > I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> > Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> > honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> > They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> > using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
> >
> > Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
> > ships???
>
> Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?
>
> David Stipes
Tai-Pan
In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
USS Valient
--
oozing on the muggy shore of the gulf coast
le...@fbtc.net
Chris Whitehead
Tai-Pan wrote:
>
> In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
> your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>
I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
it's one of those?
The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
Henri Chen
Chris Whitehead wrote:
> Tai-Pan wrote:
> > In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
> > your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>
> I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
> computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
> a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
> distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
> it's one of those?
>
> The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
> Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
> Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
> None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
> correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
In my opinion, the strongest candidate for this look-alike is the
Steamrunner; see earlier in this thread for more info. The other ships
actually do not resemble a refit Constitution as much as a Steamrunner,
which, in my opinion, looks shockingly like one when viewed from a
distance.
Live long and prosper.
202129a (Henri Chen)
Reliant39
Chris Whitehead <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> wrote...
>The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
>Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
>Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
>None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
>correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
fleet.
So if you have (I don't have exact figures, this is just hypothetical) a
fleet
of 300 ships, 100 of which are Mirandas, 100 of which are Excelsiors and
100 ships are from a varying range of classes, it would seem like the
Mirandas (and Excelsiors maybe, too, I have no idea how many there were
shot down of those (who knows how many were destroyed off camera)) were,
indeed, cannon fodder.
BTW, David Stiped said he liked the way Mirandas blew up, so that may
also be a completely different reason as to why we see so many of these
ships blow up instead of other ships (which might blow up, but which we
don't get to see).
Just a thought. :-)
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
David Stipes wrote:
>
> mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I wonder if CGI versions of certain trek ships like the
> > Enterprise-B might not be on DS9 because the models look TOO good? That
> > is did ILM make 5k bitmap texture maps, and 700,000 polygon models, so
> > they are extremely realistic but so fat RAMwise they are too big and
> > slow for television work? Do certain models have to be deliberately
> > dumbed down to work in programs like Lightwave 3d?
>
> We try to look better all the time. We do not avoid ships because they
> look too good.
>
> I believe you are correct that ILM does have a beautiful CGI
> Enterprise-B. No one on DS-9 visual effects thought to use it ot to ask
> for it.
>
> LightWave 3D can hold its own with large models. Case in point is
> "Titanic." Models do not have to be "dumbed-down" for LightWave.
>
> In certain cases lower resolution versions of Trek ships get used to
> save rendering time. These, however, are utilized in the background.
>
> --
> David Stipes, Visual Effects Supervisor, DS-9
>
> To respond, please remove X from address.
I was just reading a 3d design article on Lost In SPace and they were
talking about some mega sized bitmaps used for the 3d. Like 5k res
texturemaps just for the glass canopy, and the texturemap for the earth
was around half a gig.
On my computer at least, if I use real huge bitmaps, it slows down
rendering a lot. I thought the ultra high res textures used for film
models would slow rendering down when all hat extra detail usualy cannot
be seen on television.
Marc Ouellette
I would assume that some legal mumbo jumbo would stop the FX team on DS9
from using ILMs models, besides, doesn't ILM use an inhouse 3-D renderer?
I mean, they are the numder 1 FX house out there. And why use Lightwave
for Motion pictures, as far as high-res goes it isn't the best, it along
the lines of 3d studio Max 2 or Viz, fine for TV work but less than
adequate for a Movie, but then again I really get to into this stuff.....
Thanx for reading.....even though this makes no sense
--
Manipulate the medium
Marc Ouellette
SPAM...@vaxxine.com
To mail me remove the SPAM in front of of oryx@...
Timo S Saloniemi
In article <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> Chris Whitehead <Chris_W...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> writes:
>Tai-Pan wrote:
>>
>> In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
>> your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>>
>
>I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
>computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
>a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
>distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
>it's one of those?
Or, it could be a Steamrunner. In close-up, they look nothing like
Constitutions, but when seen from a distance, from bow and a bit below
waterline, it's easy to confuse them. The proportions and placement of
the saucers, secondary hulls and nacelles look similar from this POV
even though their exact shapes aren't.
>The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
>Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
>Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
>None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
>correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
Well, Steamrunners were used extensively in the war arc battles, but
apparently they are a bit less common in the latest battle scenes. They
are the ones with nacelles "punching through" the saucer hull and
connected at the back with down-angled pylons that join into a small
secondary hull w/deflector dish. Despite this radically "exotic"
appearance, they still do look like Constitutions from the said POV.
Timo Saloniemi
David Stipes
Marc Ouellette wrote:
And why use Lightwave
> for Motion pictures, as far as high-res goes it isn't the best, it along
> the lines of 3d studio Max 2 or Viz, fine for TV work but less than
> adequate for a Movie, but then again I really get to into this stuff.....
RE: LightWave's quality is less than adequate for movies? See "Titanic."
Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
responsive to its clients.
Timothy A. Sullivan
> (snip)
>
> Er, I don't know about you but I find it disconcerting to see Starfleet
> Officers throwing their lives away.
>
After all, that's what Redshirts are for...
Paul Cassidy
Goober wrote in message <6nmjo8$9...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>In article <6ngiqj$3j...@scotty.tinet.ie>, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>>>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>>>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>>>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>>>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>
>>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>>
>>Actually, I agree with your point. Some ships could be upgraded, but the
>>Miranda's just seem to small.
>>
>>
>
>If memory serves me right, the U.S.S. Missouri lobbed 16" shells and cruise
>missles at IRAQ during the Gulf war. With upgraded fire control systems,
>anti-ship (ie: TOW) and anti-aircraft (ie: Phalanx) capabilities, the
Missouri
>can still kick some major ASS! Not too bad for a WW2 vintage battleship.
>
>
Hey, I agree completely. I love those old ships. But they are still WWII
vintage!
Chris Whitehead
Reliant39 wrote:
>
> Chris Whitehead <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> wrote...
>
> >The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
> >Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
> >Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
> >None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
> >correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
>
> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
> fleet.
Well, I never said that they were *intentional* cannon fodder. They just
ended up that way. Probably because they are an old class of science
ship designed to have only light weaponry. Although the Reliant did give
the Enterprise a good whacking... Since they were designed for
scientific research as opposed to exploration/policing like the
Constitutions and Excelsiors, I don't think they were as easy to upgrade
to modern weaponry as the other ships. Besides, they explode nicely. :)
Marc Ouellette
I haven't seen Titanic yet, Now that I got it at the theatre I work at
maybe I'll take a peak, either way, I was overzealous and apologize......
Chris Tigger Wallace
In article <6nr22g$jh...@scotty.tinet.ie>, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:
>
>>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>>
>>>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>>>
A more apt choice would be the US using WWII destroyers in the Gulf
War. The Iowa class BB's, while old, were big ships that, when properly
outfitted, can hold their own. Kinda like the Excelsiors.
The Miranda would be more like a WWII DD, which even with modern
weapons, would still be pretty outclassed and would probably not survive a
cruise missile attack as well as a BB.
Chris
Chris "Tigger" Wallace
(remove the ns- from my e-mail address to reply)
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
By the way, am thinkin about getting the darktree texture plugin. Has
anybody beta tested or tried it. The big professional companies can be
superior photorealisticaly because they can do it in renderman or custom
renderer. Darktree supposidly can give lightwave a custom shader deal
that could give it almost renderman like shading controll, without
massive programming skills required.
Jason Atkinson
Wallace) wrote:
> A more apt choice would be the US using WWII destroyers in the Gulf
>War. The Iowa class BB's, while old, were big ships that, when properly
>outfitted, can hold their own. Kinda like the Excelsiors.
>
More like WW1 destroyers.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
almost 100 years old. I think Star Fleet needs a major building
effort to replace Mirandas with Sabers and Defiants for the war. The
Mirandas can be stripped apart to recycle parts and materials to make
the new ships. Star Fleet also needs to give its shield strength
another boost, so we can actually notice them.
Chris Wagner
> LOL!! And of course the lead Miranda ship could be code-named "Pawn
> Sacrifice". :)
>
> Methinks the "official" reason for all the Mirandas is that the Feds are
> pulling all the old ships out of mothballs due to desperation. I'd bet
> even the Constitution-class ships are getting used. (Not that we'll ever
> see one...) And Constitutions explode nicely too. :)
What also explodes nicely is the writers' butts after late night runs to
Tiajuana to get story ideas.
Chris Wagner
> I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
> fleet.
Its not the fact that they get destroyed but that they die so stupidly.
You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
Miranda's???
> So if you have (I don't have exact figures, this is just hypothetical) a
> fleet
> of 300 ships, 100 of which are Mirandas, 100 of which are Excelsiors and
> 100 ships are from a varying range of classes, it would seem like the
> Mirandas (and Excelsiors maybe, too, I have no idea how many there were
> shot down of those (who knows how many were destroyed off camera)) were,
> indeed, cannon fodder.
The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.
It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.
> BTW, David Stiped said he liked the way Mirandas blew up, so that may
> also be a completely different reason as to why we see so many of these
> ships blow up instead of other ships (which might blow up, but which we
> don't get to see).
>
> Just a thought. :-)
Well, I like the way CARDASSIAN ships blow up. Hmph.
Chris Wagner
> RE: LightWave's quality is less than adequate for movies? See "Titanic."
>
> Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
> over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
> responsive to its clients.
Hey David, while we're on this, what hardware/software combo's do you
guys use? Hardware is so cheap now that anybody can make a Hyglac or
Beowulf machine that can dust several models of Cray for a fraction of
the price.
Chris Wagner
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>
> Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
I wouldn't say that. The Iowa class is pretty much impervious to the
Exocet missle and even Harpoons couldn't sink one without multiple
hits. The Iowa is an extraordiary vessel. Only US Aircraft Carriers
are in the same league when it comes to durability and survivability.
In terms of offensive/defensive weapons systems, the Iowa is unrivaled
in the world. Aircraft carriers are completely dependant on fighters.
Add a little nasty weather and they're at a BB's mercy.
David S. Poepoe
Goober wrote in message
>>>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>>>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>>>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>>>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>>>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>
What one should keep in mind is that the Miranda's were at one time the work
horse ships of the fleet, there were probably more of them in service than
the Consitutions. They fit a nice little spot as a small capital ship, many
fan books class them as frigates. Star Fleet undoubtedly has a policy for
actually building weapon platforms which can easily be upgraded when
necessary, which means that the Mirandas can stay in service for several
decades with drydocking for major upgrading every five years.
This also brings up great failing of ST encyclopedias and the brains behind
them. No single class would be in production from Kirk's time to ST:DS9.
Much like there is contention that the Enterprise NCC-1701-B is actually a
seperate class from the Excelsior, what we see in DS9 should, realistically
be Miranda Mark IV or V's, if not some larger number. Okuda and others
would have solved many problems by looking at old issues of Jane's All the
World's Fighting Ships, rather than making Star Fleet ships seem like they
are cranked off the assembly line.
Not to mention the most important fact that sound tactics takes distant
backseat to storytelling. The horrendous losses of Star Fleet ships should
bring about an examination of Star Fleet officer training. The continued
use of close in combat, while looking great on screen, reinforces the idea
that Star Fleet Command is run by 12 year olds.
David Poepoe
Kasey Chang
>More like WW1 destroyers.
REFITTED WW1 destroyers are still just as lethal. The only problem would be
their powerplant (they burn coal, not oil).
I believe many WW2 destroyers survived well into the 60's...
--
Kuo-Sheng "Kasey" Chang / MIS Developer / DisCopyLabs / Fremont, CA
K S Y @ I C P . O Address coded
A E C D S O Y C M to foil spam
Kasey Chang
>Jason Atkinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
>> wrote:
>> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
Hmmm... Did it have fire missions in the Gulf War? I'm not good in Gulf War
trivia. :-)
>> Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
>> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
>> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
You wouldn't deploy a BB by itself any way. It's probably a part of a CVBG,
with occasional forays escorted by a couple destroyers and frigates for
shore bombardments.
For fun reading, try Vortex by Larry Bond, where Iowa traded punches with a
South African fortress armed with the famous G3 and G4 long range cannons
(they actually outrange the Iowa!)
>I wouldn't say that. The Iowa class is pretty much impervious to the
>Exocet missile and even Harpoons couldn't sink one without multiple
>hits. The Iowa is an extraordinary vessel. Only US Aircraft Carriers
>are in the same league when it comes to durability and survivability.
>In terms of offensive/defensive weapons systems, the Iowa is unrivaled
>in the world. Aircraft carriers are completely dependant on fighters.
>Add a little nasty weather and they're at a BB's mercy.
Iowas are MORE survivable than carriers. They don't have all the flammable
stuff onboard like a carrier does (planes and their ordnance). Its estimated
that it'll take at least six (more like eight) of those huge Soviet cruise
missiles like the Kitchen to kill a CVA. Add 25% to 50% for killing an
Iowa...
Reliant39
organised fleet action will EVER take place.
--
The adres in the headers is fake. Use this one instead:
jo...@worldonline.nl (if you want to reply to me).
_
Visit my site: http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~josho/
Chris Wagner wrote:
>Reliant39 wrote:
<SNIP text abou Miranda wrongly accused of being Cannon Fodder>
>Its not the fact that they get destroyed but that they die so stupidly.
>You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
>into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
>together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
>looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
>action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
>Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
>been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
>The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
>Miranda's???
<SNIP Continued about Mirandas blowing up>
>The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
>role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
>ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.
>It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
>instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
>been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
>Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
>torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
>concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
>the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
>blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.
<SNIP About David Stipes liking how Mirandas blew up>
Nathaniel Forest
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>
> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
> effort to replace Mirandas with Sabers and Defiants for the war. The
> Mirandas can be stripped apart to recycle parts and materials to make
> the new ships. Star Fleet also needs to give its shield strength
> another boost, so we can actually notice them.
I remember reading on an official Marine Corp.
web page a quote from a Russian Admiral that stated
that the Russians had run simulations and tests to
see if they could elimanate the battleships and had
found out that nothing in their arsenal short of
nuclear weapons could inflict enough damage to cripple
the battleships. It turns out that the ships' extremely
thick hull is very effective at stoping missiles.
Darrell Lawrence
*L* Got that right. One of my favorite sayings: "A ship does not make a
Captain, rather a Captain makes a ship."
Darrell
Jeff Peedin
> Darrell Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
> > at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
> > them.
>
> Perhaps they just don't look attractive enough or streamlined enough to
> add to the appearance of a CGI fleet. More than likely nice looking
> modern Trek ships are the ones being prioritized (I see David mentioned
> they are working on improving their CGI Norway) rather than the
> Ambassador class which isn't exactly the prettiest girl on the block.
If they want nice looking modern ships why are there so many Mirandas?
The Ambassador class is a lot younger than the Excelsior and Miranda
classes. And I think it is a pretty nice looking ship.
Richie Kennedy
>
>Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
>over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
>responsive to its clients.
NewTek is based in a building in Topeka that the share with the USDA. I
visited their building on a field trip. They are a, well, interesting group
of people. One of the 'higher ups' has an interest in old TV's, and several
of them are around, as well as an old camera from WIBW-TV (which is also the
Topeka DS9 affiliate). Also around are a few Nerf guns to relieve stress.
Richie Kennedy, who is currently a Computer Science major at Kansas
University and a lifetime resident of Lawrence, KS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Richie Kennedy rou...@sunflower.com|
| |
|Route 56 Productions http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/ |
|KU Crimson Girls http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/crimson/ |
|High School Poms/Cheers http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/spirit/ |
|Kansas Highways http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/highways/ |
|The Gas Price Guide |
| http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/gaspriceguide/index.pl |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Gross
Richie Kennedy wrote in message <6o8qro$b27$1...@supernews.com>...
>NewTek is based in a building in Topeka that the share with the USDA. I
>visited their building on a field trip. They are a, well, interesting
group
>of people. One of the 'higher ups' has an interest in old TV's, and
several
>of them are around, as well as an old camera from WIBW-TV (which is also
the
>Topeka DS9 affiliate). Also around are a few Nerf guns to relieve stress.
>
>Richie Kennedy, who is currently a Computer Science major at Kansas
>University and a lifetime resident of Lawrence, KS
Actually NewTek has relocated to Texas, where their corporate headquarters
now exist.
John Gross
Digital Muse
jo...@dmuse.com work
cas...@mediaone.net home
TheFlinx
John Gross <cas...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<BtUp1.1363$0N.16...@cynws01.we.mediaone.net>...
In their early days in Topeka they kept curious visitors away with a sign
that read "OVER _3_ DAYS WITHOUT NUCLEAR MATERIAL SPILLS
Timo S Saloniemi
>Reliant39 wrote:
>> I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
>> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
>> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
>> fleet.
>
>You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
>into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
>together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
>looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
>action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
>Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
>been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
>The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
>Miranda's???
The Mirandas might be some sort of perimeter guard ships. Some of them
then must be guarding the forward perimeter as well - perhaps these
are pressed into attacking the enemy main forces "accidentally" (i.e.
they don't have time to retreat and let the main offensive forces
attack)?
The idea of perimeter guards may or may not be a valid one in the Trek
universe. One might envision the Mirandas as later-day Oliver Hazard
Perrys, launching intercept weapons (photon torpedoes instead of
Stardards here) from a low-cost platform to inflict some losses on
an enemy inbond to attack the main fleet. The ships would also be used for
providing neary suicidal close-in escort services with their phasers for
penetration attacks, as in "Sacrifice of the Angels" and "Tears of the
Prophets" - but only when Starfleet was feeling desperate. Usually,
the Mirandas would be caught in the action only by accident, and would
spend most of their time at the rim of the formation.
>The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
>role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
>ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.
Indeed.
>It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
>instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
>been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
>Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
>torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
>concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
>the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
>blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.
In the "waiting at a starbase" establishing shots we often see three-ships
or even six-ships of Mirandas, suggesting that flotilla tactics are at
least part of the training if not actually used in combat.
Anyway, it would be nice to see the big fleets divided to smaller units
SOMEHOW, no matter what the logic or tactics. ANY grouping of ships would
be an improvement over the current free-for-all. Mirandas could go for
a dogfight if dramatically necessary - as long as *other* ships are shown
using *different* attack methods. Mirandas should fight differently from
Excelsiors or Galaxies as a starting point, and exact tactics could
then be left as an excercise to the viewer. It would be enough to see
the ships divided into definite formations - we could then invent explanations
and rationalizations to what these formations seem to be doing in the
battles.
Timo Saloniemi
Jason Atkinson
Saloniemi) wrote:
>Anyway, it would be nice to see the big fleets divided to smaller units
>SOMEHOW, no matter what the logic or tactics. ANY grouping of ships would
>be an improvement over the current free-for-all. Mirandas could go for
>a dogfight if dramatically necessary - as long as *other* ships are shown
>using *different* attack methods.
We hear references to "wings" but they seem to be little more then
fancy names for hordes, by the way they behave. Still, I'd like to
think that the battle we see when the fleet in on the way to DS9 is an
exception rather then the rule, because they we so desperate to get to
DS9 before the mines were cleared they just tried to charge on through
as quick as they can.
Steve Pugh
<larso....@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Is it possible that Mirandas are also used because a CGI Miranda was
>available from the finale of "Generations"? (Were the Farragut et al.
>CGI in that? I don't know.)
>Of course, if this is true than why aren't there more good ol' Nebula
>classed ships?
The ships at the end of Generations were physical models not CGI.
However CGI Mirandas were presumable created for the battle in First
Contact.
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
Steve Pugh http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4173/intro.html
Carl Seutter
How detailed do you want to get into the big battles? SoA alone would
probably consume over twenty hours for the first 15 minutes if any
detail and tactics were employed. Tim's appraisals of the uses and
properties of the Miranda class seem right on. They are what used to
be known as picket ships. They pack a punch; but they are light, cheap
vessels. They are good for patrols of all regions with minor
scientific missions as secondary or even primary roles. The use of one
as the protector on the Genesis project is a logical choice
considering the low status of Mirandas and their sting. A Miranda
patrolling in the area of a research vessel would raise far less
suspicion than a Constitution class refit. Or even an original build
for that matter. It would be expected that reinforcements could get
there soon enough to help out the Reliant. Regulus was well inside
Federation space.
The two Mirandas destroyed while escorting the Defiant seem to be a
desparation matter. The Akiras would be a better escort for such a
ship. They werw obviously tied up with other duties since we see a
couple in the distance after the Klingon arrival in SoA.
-Carl
David Stipes
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:30:04 -0600, Lars P Ormberg
> <larso....@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Is it possible that Mirandas are also used because a CGI Miranda was
> >available from the finale of "Generations"?
>
> Contact.
>
> Steve
>
The Miranda shipes used in DS-9 were modeled, surfaced, and animated by
Digital Muse, not ILM.
David Stipes
>
> The Miranda shipes used in DS-9 were modeled, surfaced, and animated by
> Digital Muse, not ILM.
That is supposed to be Miranda ships....
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
David, mentioned the trek film\tv look paradox earlier, and you said
that DS9 Voyager and the films are somehow in seperate 'universes'?
The reason i asked, and about that motion blurred torpedo thing is
that part of the trek look is the so called 'canon' what is officialy
trek and what isnt. I thought that the trek films took precidence way
OVER any of the tv shows.
Example, the borgs in TNG looked somewhat different from the first
contact borgs. Now the FC Borg are official canon borg, and they look
like that on Voyager, alhtough the cube ship kinda can't make up it's
mind to look like the TV or movie cube. In Generations and FC, the
combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
of the two trek series. Spaceships like Akira class suddenly now pop up
in DS9 all the time, they have largely replaced other ships as the
official federatio fleet, everyone on DS9 now has First Contact phaser
rifles, or close facsimilies, and similar rifles and other props have
mysteriously materialized on Voyager.
Since we have never seen DS9 or runabouts, or Intrepid class ships, or
just about anything unique to the two series in the films, one could
argue that changes in FX and general look in Trek drift on way, and the
tv shows should imitate the films whenever possible.
Jason Atkinson
<mco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> The reason i asked, and about that motion blurred torpedo thing is
>that part of the trek look is the so called 'canon' what is officialy
>trek and what isnt. I thought that the trek films took precidence way
>OVER any of the tv shows.
Different torps. Different speeds. Different look.
> Example, the borgs in TNG looked somewhat different from the first
>contact borgs. Now the FC Borg are official canon borg, and they look
>like that on Voyager, alhtough the cube ship kinda can't make up it's
>mind to look like the TV or movie cube.
So? Why should they have only one type of cube? Why should they have
only one type of drone. Borg tech advances, so their look changes
some.
> In Generations and FC, the
>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>of the two trek series.
Militaries change uniforms all the time. Over the 20 years of my
dad's career, only one item stayed the same.
> Spaceships like Akira class suddenly now pop up
>in DS9 all the time, they have largely replaced other ships as the
>official federatio fleet, everyone on DS9 now has First Contact phaser
>rifles, or close facsimilies, and similar rifles and other props have
>mysteriously materialized on Voyager.
So? Just like the army introducing new varieties of the M-16, or
replacing the M-60. Just like the Air Farce getting new planes.
Kroagnon
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
> ... In Generations and FC, the
>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>of the two trek series.
Have you been watching Voyager lately? Their uniforms have not changed.
Kroagnon
to respond via E-Mail, remove the nope- before my E-Mail address
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
I belive Voyager premiered just a few months after Generations. That
movie, the squarer combadges moved on down to DS9 and Voyager. They
also tried CGI trek ships in that movie for the first time, and that
happened for Voyager's opening titles and later episodes. Also in
Genrations, for the first time, the escape pod hatches were clearly
marked, and on all ships on, were painted bright colors on the hull.
Enterprise-D, on the show, the pod hatches were just faint rectangular
protrusions.
Jason Atkinson
<nope-k...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
>
>> ... In Generations and FC, the
>>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>>of the two trek series.
>
>Have you been watching Voyager lately? Their uniforms have not changed.
>
What, you think Star Fleet will find a way to magically send the
latest in regulation uniforms to the Delta Quadrent to that the
Voyager crew will look proper?
Chris Whitehead
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:48:45 -0500, "Kroagnon"
> <nope-k...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> >> ... In Generations and FC, the
> >>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
> >>of the two trek series.
> >
> >Have you been watching Voyager lately? Their uniforms have not changed.
> >
I think the two series mccooney is referring to are TNG and DS9, not DS9
and Voyager or TNG and Voyager.
> What, you think Star Fleet will find a way to magically send the
> latest in regulation uniforms to the Delta Quadrent to that the
> Voyager crew will look proper?
Well, The Doctor did see the new uniforms in "Message in a Bottle". I
don't think Voyager will get the new uniforms, though. It helps distance
that series from the other two. If Voyager ever returns home (and
actually stays there), they probably will get the current uniforms.
--
Chris Whitehead
UBC Computer Engineering Co-op Student
PMC-Sierra Inc. (Design Services)
Tel: (604) 415-6053 Ext. 2043
Chris_W...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
>
>> ... In Generations and FC, the
>>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>>of the two trek series.
>
>Have you been watching Voyager lately? Their uniforms have not changed.
Yet, the subject of the discussion was "do the movies take place in the
same universe as the shows, i.e. do they affect the shows?". And while
the Voyager crew hasn't changed their clothes for four years (yecch!),
the show fully acknowledges the movie-induced uniform change by showing
Adm. Hayes in the new uniform in a message sent by him from the Alpha
Quadrant. So Voyager the TV show follows the movies as well... even if
the crew of starship Voyager doesn't!
Timo Saloniemi
Pug
> >
> >mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> >> ... In Generations and FC, the
> >>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
> >>of the two trek series.
> >
A couple of minor questions:
For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one uniform
and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a costuming decision).
And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
Pug
Eric Matthews
Pug wrote:
> tsal...@hiili.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) writes: > In article <6p39d9$1us$1...@news.megsinet.net> "Kroagnon" <nope-k...@geocities.com> writes:
> > >
> > >mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > >> ... In Generations and FC, the
> > >>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
> > >>of the two trek series.
> > >
>
> A couple of minor questions:
> For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one uniform
> and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a costuming decision)
Valid parallel in today's U.S. Air Force. The uniforms we saw on TNG (and on DS9 whenever a starship visited or when Sisko went back to Earth) are
the standard duty uniforms. From what we've seen, they haven't changed (cf. DS9 "The Rapture"). The mostly black uniforms introduced on DS9 are the
older-style Batle Dress Uniforms (BDUs), to be worn when you're expecting to get dirty. The uniforms introduced in First Contact are the new BDUs.
> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
> with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
> the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
To paraphrase Timo, the Enterprise-A was given to Kirk as a replica of his former command. A gift from a grateful Federation council who didn't
give a damn what sort of bureaucratic nightmares would pop up from having two ships with the same registry, especially when the registries were up
to about 2700 or higher at the time. So they added the '-A' after the replica registry. It was probably intended as a once-off deal, but as part of
the media hype around the new Excelsior-class Enterprise, they decided to recycle the registry again, this time with a '-B' after it. And thus,
like most silly military traditions, the whole Enterprise lettering thing wasn't allowed to die the death it deserved. I wonder if they're still
going to have a Federation or a Starfleet by the time they'd get up to '-Z'. And if so, THEN what would they do...?
And for the record, the (admittedly fictitious) U.S.S. Dauntless had a registry of NX-01-A. I'd be tempted to ignore this as a silly alien who
didn't understand everything about Federation registries, but the Voyager crew didn't seem puzzled by it. There is much rationalizing yet to be
done with this.
--Jonah
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>Quadrant. So Voyager the TV show follows the movies as well... even if
>the crew of starship Voyager doesn't!
Why should they? They are on the other side of the galaxy, and do not
receive news about uniform updates.
Steve Pugh
>A couple of minor questions:
>For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one uniform
>and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a costuming decision).
Look at any military in the world. There are alawys lots of uniform
varaitions. The Enterprise as the flagship of the fleet seems to dress
the crew in a more formal uniform than DS9 as a scuzzy outpost on the
edge of the Federation. Notice that visiting starship crews often wear
the TNG uniforms and that Sisko changed back into this uniform when
assigned to Earth in Homefront/Paradise Lost
>And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
>with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
>the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
It's just one of those illogical traditions that build up over time in
navies (and other institutions). It's a commemoration of the huge
number of times that Kirk and the Enterprise saved the Federation.
(Cycnically: it could also be because when Starfleet renamed another
ship Enterprise and gave her to Kirk at the end of ST IV they didn't
have any other free registries in whatever range of numbers were
assigned to the Constitution class and so tacked an A on the end and
invented the above tradition.)
Graham Kennedy
>
> tsal...@hiili.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) writes: > In article <6p39d9$1us$1...@news.megsinet.net> "Kroagnon" <nope-k...@geocities.com> writes:
> > >
> > >mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > >> ... In Generations and FC, the
> > >>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
> > >>of the two trek series.
> > >
>
> For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one uniform
> and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a costuming decision).
The DS9 uniform was probably regarded as a 'station crew' uniform
at first, and was later adopted by the starship crews.
> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
> with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
> the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
You must be joking! Nothing special about the Enterprise! These
original Enterprise saved countless billions of Federation lives
- destroying the Doomsday machine and Nomad, stopping the neural
parasites from spreading, destroying the space amoeba, stopping
V'Ger from attacking earth, stopping Khan from getting away with
the Genesis Device - in fact, I think they even saved the entire
universe from destruction in "The Alternative Factor"! And in
ST III, Kirk and company saved Earth from destruction by the alien
space probe. I think there's more than enough reason to consider
her special.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Brack
>On 23 Jul 1998 20:00:37 GMT, Pug <pug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A couple of minor questions:
>>For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one uniform
>>and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a costuming decision).
>
>Look at any military in the world. There are alawys lots of uniform
>varaitions. The Enterprise as the flagship of the fleet seems to dress
>the crew in a more formal uniform than DS9 as a scuzzy outpost on the
>edge of the Federation. Notice that visiting starship crews often wear
>the TNG uniforms and that Sisko changed back into this uniform when
>assigned to Earth in Homefront/Paradise Lost
>
>>And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
>>with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
>>the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
>
>It's just one of those illogical traditions that build up over time in
>navies (and other institutions). It's a commemoration of the huge
>number of times that Kirk and the Enterprise saved the Federation.
>(Cycnically: it could also be because when Starfleet renamed another
>ship Enterprise and gave her to Kirk at the end of ST IV they didn't
>have any other free registries in whatever range of numbers were
>assigned to the Constitution class and so tacked an A on the end and
>invented the above tradition.)
>
> Steve
>
>--
>"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
>"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
> and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."
>
>Steve Pugh http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4173/intro.html
The reason was that they were wearing BAJORAN uniforms being a Bajoran
Space Station.
Andrew.
Dangermouse
Graham Brack <brack....@dnet.co.uk> wrote
> >"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
And a load of contraband to fill it with!
> The reason was that they were wearing BAJORAN uniforms being a Bajoran
> Space Station.
Except that they weren't. The Starfleet crew wear Starfleet uniforms. The
Bajoran uniforms are those orange/pink ones which the shoulder-patches.
Timo S Saloniemi
>A couple of minor questions:
>For a while there (when DS9 and TNG were both on TV), Ds9 were using one
>uniform and TNG another. What was the reason for this (apart from a
>costuming decision).
Well, for Paramount, it was just a costuming decision. They wanted a
grittier, more workmanlike uniform for the station show - part of their
"darker, grittier" agenda that some mistook as meaning the plot structure
while it actually referred to the general costuming and set building etc.
No direct explanation was given why Starfleet was doing this. But it
seemed obvious that the two designs were just two parallel and complementing
categories of uniform, with the dress uniform (which was the same in TNG
and DS9) a third category. In formal occasions, and aboard big starships,
people used the TNG version (Sisko wore it while aboard the Saratoga, and
while on Earth in "Paradise Lost"). In normal day-to-day work aboard
a small station (DS9) or a small ship (the Voyager), the DS9 style was
the preferred one. And in very formal situations, the dress uniform was
used.
(A similar parallelism seemed to exist in ST:TMP, which featured a standard
two-piece uniform and a more comfortable "jumpsuit" for the officers.
STII-VI didn't seem to have an optional jumpsuit for officers, although
apparent commissioned officer Janice Rand wore the "cadet" jumpsuit in STIV.
TOS had jumpsuits as well, and at least once one was worn by an officer.)
There was no indication in the show that the TNG style was "older" or
the DS9 style "newer". The crews of big starships continued to use the
TNG style to the bitter end (indeed, some have still been seen after
the introduction of the First Contact uniform style!).
In Generations, the crew of the Enterprise began with TNG style uniforms,
and the males changed to DS9 style when their initial uniforms got damaged
or dirtied up or something. The females never changes - apparently, the
uniform of Terry Farrell didn't fit Marina Sirtis or Gates McFadden, and
there was no intention of actually making new DS9 uniforms just for this
movie. The males used the uniforms of the DS9 male cast, save for a couple
of red-shouldered ones that were apparently carefully tailored for the big
stars. The extras mainly wore the TNG style. Anyway, the end result was that
the TNG style survived as the primary Enterprise style right until the end
of that movie.
>And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are suffixed
>with a letter... surely there can't be anything especially special about
>the Enterprises apart from the fact that they're depicted on TV.
Apparently, Starfleet is just pulling a publicity stunt. "See, this new
and hugely complex and three-times-over-the-budget ship that is ten
times more powerful than we ever imagine we could need is not all that
bad - you see that it's yet another Enterprise! Check the registry -
it's the old and famous 1701 all over again! We NEED it since the previous
Enterprise got destroyed!"
So they are capitalizing on the publicity value of Kirk, who used the
first 1701 to save Earth two or three times, the whole Federation at least
thrice and the entire universe at least once. Other ships just ride on
the wave of popularity that propels the Enterprises.
There is no logical sense in using these suffix letters - the function of
the registry numbers is to tell ships *apart*, so each ship should have
a completely different registry. But it's cute to imply that the registry
of the old Enterprise is somehow "honored" or "sacred" along with its name.
Timo Saloniemi
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
>
> > >> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are
> > suffixed
> > >> with a letter...
> >
> > picks them up, but the original Farragut got destroyed prior to TOS. There
> > are a lot of names that keep popping up like that. Even the name "Defiant"
> > has been used before (though, I suspect they didn't suffex it b/c it wasn't
> > and NCC ship but an NX). The writers probably just don't dwell on it.
>
> Many ship names are used for more than one ship, but Enterprises are the
> only ones that keep the same registry number and put a letter on. For
> example: There have been three different ships called Intrepid; the first
> one (Constitution class) was NCC-1631; the second (Excelsior class) was
> NCC-38907; the third (class ship for Intrepid class) is NCC-74600.
>
> Enterprises, on the other hand, are always NCC-1701 with various letters added.
>
> -- Brian
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> A young man wants cold cereal and a hot wife.
> An old man wants hot oatmeal and a warm comforter.
> Middle-aged men want a hot wife and get cold comfort.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
After seeing First Contact, the Phoenix had no registary number, but
I always wondered if after the federation was inaugerated it got the
honerary number NCC-01 or NX-01. What starship if not the Pheonix has
the lowest registary number?
Curtis D. Spindler
>> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are
suffixed
>> with a letter...
Presumably, so are a lot of ships. At the end of Generations, the Farragut
picks them up, but the original Farragut got destroyed prior to TOS. There
are a lot of names that keep popping up like that. Even the name "Defiant"
has been used before (though, I suspect they didn't suffex it b/c it wasn't
and NCC ship but an NX). The writers probably just don't dwell on it.
CDS
Reliant39
That's why the Enterprises are the only ships suffixed by a letter. (I've seen ship
lists identifying Intrepids and such as Intrepid I, Intrepid II, Intrepid III, and so forth
--but that's probably not canon).
--
The adres in the headers is fake. Use this one instead:
jo...@worldonline.nl (if you want to reply to me).
_
Visit my site: http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~josho/
Julian Hall
> Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
> >
> > > >> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are
> > > suffixed
> > > >> with a letter...
Not correct. The Yamato instantly springs to mind, and i am sure there
are more.
Regards,
--
Julian M Hall
web: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rebel ICQ#: 6862377
email: julian at rebel dot prestel dot co dot uk
"The Blues ain't nuthin' but a good man feeling bad.."
Paul Cassidy
Julian Hall wrote in message ...
>In article <35BA35...@earthlink.net>, mco...@earthlink.net says...
>> Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers
are
>> > > suffixed
>> > > >> with a letter...
>
>Not correct. The Yamato instantly springs to mind, and i am sure there
>are more.
>
in a later ep.
Robert Oliver
> I always wondered if after the federation was inaugerated it got the
> honerary number NCC-01 or NX-01. What starship if not the Pheonix has
> the lowest registary number?
The first starship produced by *Starfleet* would get that honor.
Starfleet being a service made up of numerous alien races. I doubt
Phoenix would be in consideration.
--
Steeltown: A Big Country web site
http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm
A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/
The Unofficial Wheel of Time Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3513/wot.htm
McReynolds
>As for the first Starfleet ship ever built, I always assumed it was the
>USS Daedalus. We know that the Daedalus-class ships are some of the
>oldest that Starfleet has ever had, and they were in service around the
>same time that Starfleet was founded (cf. "Power Play" TNG). Given this,
>I think the class ship USS Daedalus was Starfleet's first ship. The other
>ships in the class (Essex, Horizon, Carolina, Archon) all had registry
>numbers in the 100's, so the Daedalus itself was probably NCC-100.
I know it has been discussed before, but I am still convinced that the alien
from "Hope and Fear" (VGR) pulled the name and registry of the U.S.S.
Dauntless from somewhere. In my opinion, Starfleet's first vessel registry
was the U.S.S. Dauntless (NCC-01), lead ship of the Dauntless-class.
Notice, this does not preclude the simultaneous building, commissioning, or
existence of the Daedalus-class, which very well might start with the U.S.S.
Daedalus (NCC-100) as you conjectured.
-McReynolds
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>>> And also, why is it that only the Enterprises' registry numbers are
>>> suffixed with a letter...
>Presumably, so are a lot of ships. At the end of Generations, the Farragut
>picks them up, but the original Farragut got destroyed prior to TOS. There
>are a lot of names that keep popping up like that.
Nobody doubts that Starfleet reuses *names*. At the moment, there are
about twenty starship names that have been reused, and more are popping
up all the time. Some have been used three times already, like the
Intrepid, although none seems to approach the Enterprise's record of
six (as far as we know - there might easily have been eighteen Lexingtons,
of which we only saw two).
However, the recycling of *REGISTRIES* is a wholly different matter. All
the other ships with recycled names have had brand-new registries without
any suffix - save for one mistake, later retconned (USS Yamato 1305-E) and
one or two in-jokes (USS Nash, 2010-B). This is natural, since the purpose
of the registries is to tell the ships *apart*.
The Farragut of Generations did not have the supposedly four-digit registry
of the TOS Farragut - instead, it sported a five-digit number more suited
to the era it was serving in. Un-suffixed numbers seem to be very practical
in establishing from which era a certain ship comes...
>Even the name "Defiant" has been used before (though, I suspect they didn't
>suffex it b/c it wasn't and NCC ship but an NX).
Why should the registry be suffixed at all? I can understand recycling
the names of famous predecessor ships. Those are full of glory and
history. But only a Vulcan numerologist freak would think that there is
glory and honor in a dull four-or five-decimal NUMBER. I have never heard
of any military organization honoring a registry number or a pennant code
before. And I certainly don't want to be remembered mainly by my phone
number when I pass away...
>The writers probably just don't dwell on it.
That much is certain.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>I thought only the Enteprise maintained the same registry to honour Kirk's
>ship. That's why the Enterprises are the only ships suffixed by a letter.
Not that other ships aren't worth honoring. It's just that recycling an
old registry seems more like an insult than an honor. Reusing old *names*
is nice, reusing old *numbers* is silly.
>(I've seen ship lists identifying Intrepids and such as Intrepid I,
>Intrepid II, Intrepid III, and so forth --but that's probably not canon).
No on-screen ship has ever carried such suffix numbers, no. And it's
just as well - after all, it would be silly to label the Intrepid of
TOS "Immunity Sundrome" as "Intrepid I", thereby precluding all chances
for earlier ships named Intrepid. Yet another perfectly good name for
a Daedalus ship goes to waste. Leaving out the numbers also leaves the
writers the chance to insert other vessels of that name between the
"known" vessels.
And the current navies don't do this much, either. HMS Ark Royal isn't
named HMS Ark Royal VI or anything, even if there have been five ships
of that name in the Royal Navy before (not a real number - I'm no expert
on this). Indeed, naming a ship HMS Ark Royal VI would inevitably make one
think that the idiots at Royal Navy have already managed to sink five
perfectly good ships and have had to build a sixth one to replace them
(which couldn't be farther from the truth - Ark Royal the midget aircraft
carrier bears no such relationship to Ark Royal the battleships, ships of
line or other vessels, and certainly isn't a casualty replacement). This
is also the thought that surfaces when seeing an "Enterprise-E", which
probably is no casualty replacement, either.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> After seeing First Contact, the Phoenix had no registary number, but
>> I always wondered if after the federation was inaugerated it got the
>> honerary number NCC-01 or NX-01. What starship if not the Pheonix has
>> the lowest registary number?
>
>The first starship produced by *Starfleet* would get that honor.
>Starfleet being a service made up of numerous alien races. I doubt
>Phoenix would be in consideration.
However, it's likely that at least *some* pre-Federation ships were given
NCC registries when Starfleet was founded - it would have made no sense
to just scrap perfectly good older ships just because they happened to have
wrong registry numbers. So NCC-01 (or NCC/NX-1, or NCC/NX-001) may have
gone to some pre-Federation design. Or then no ship ever received that
number, and the first NCC ever was NCC-32 or something, for some
unknown bureaucratical reason.
One wonders which vessels of pre-Federation age would be given NCCs. Not
museum pieces like the Phoenix, certainly, since they would not see any
kind of service in Starfleet. Not the most outdated or damaged of ships
from the recent war, unless there was a desperate need to upgrade or
repair them instead of building new ones. But perhaps the Daedaluses
were among these pre-UFP ships to be adopted to Starfleet?
One would assume that during the first month of Starfleet's existence,
some 500 NCCs were allocated to form a fleet of viable size. During the
next fifty years, perhaps twelve more registries were then added...
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
drive and wasn't made for interstellar travel. Its FC warp jump
ended still within sight of Earth and never left the solar system.
GeneK
Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> But Cochrane's Phoenix was not a *Starfleet* vessel, so it would not
> receive an NCC or NX prefix. Only Starfleet military vessels get those.
Reliant39
>But Cochrane's Phoenix was not a *Starfleet* vessel, so it would not
>receive an NCC or NX prefix. Only Starfleet military vessels get those.
It's unclear if Starfleet is military. And to not start this all over again:
"Dammit, Jim, I'm a soldier, not a diplomat!" spoken by mcCoy on TOS
contradicts the TNG writers guide that the writers for the show should see
Star Trek's Starfleet as a blend of the Calypso, the Coast Guard and
NASA.
No saluting, "Sir" is used as airline pilots use it: Courtesy. Better to say
all Starfleet vessels, because there are no Starfleet vessels without the
NCC or NX prefix. NAR and other exotic registry prefixes are given to
ships that are *not* part of the Starfleet.
Wasn't the USS Horizon, the Daedelus or something along that line the
first Starfleet ship with registry NX-01 (I believe that is the first registry
ever)?
--
Josho "Reliant39" Brouwers
e-mail 1: jo...@worldonline.nl
e-mail 2: reli...@amsterdam.crosswinds.net
My ICQ #: 14113353
_
Be sure to pay a visit to "The Mutara Nebula" at
http://www.crosswinds.net/amsterdam/~reliant39/
For various info on Star Trek: The Original Series.
_
Or join the USS Tempest. Visit this Star Trek site:
http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~josho/
A Play-By-E-Mail RPG set in the early 24th century.
_
"What does God need with a starship?" --Kirk
Reliant39
<SNIP on USS Lexingtons>
>Three. :-) (A Constitution-class, an Excelsior-class, and a Nebula-class)
>
>Note: Dr. Lense, Bashir's valedictorian from medical school, served on
>two of these ships. She was originally posted to the Excelsior-class
>Lexington but later transferred to the Nebula version.
Why was that? I gather the Excelsior got destroyed or something? I don't
remember that episode (if I've ever seen it).
mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)
The USS arizona is still in commisssion, but it's rotting on the ocean
floor. The Constitution sits in a harbor but it's officialy still part
of the navy.
Cochrane's ship the Pheonix, is the single most important ship in the
history of the federation. It's the first true starship ever made. And
the Federation is earth centered so humans would have more pull in which
ship would get the first registary number. I still believe the Pheonix
has NCC-01 or NX-01.
Timo S Saloniemi
I'd like to take exception on that NCC-100 issue. We have basically two
ways to do TOS-era registries. Okuda suggests there is no systematism
in them - Constitutions aren't neatly ordered from 1700 to 17??, for
example. Fanfic sources in turn suggest a rigid system where each ship
class gets registries in a sequential batch, preferably beginning with
a double-zero registry.
Now, if we follow the Okuda example, USS Daedalus could be NCC-47 or
NCC-198 just as well as NCC-100. However, I dislike that system at
least in the TOS context. Anyway, NCC-100 would be quite a coincidence
in the Okuda system.
If we in turn follow the fanfic system, then NCC-100 can't be right.
There were only 12 sister ships to the Enterprise at one point in
TOS, and that was when Starfleet had gotten big and powerful. One
would then suspect that the Daedalus class was far smaller than 60
to 80 ships (is USS Carolina NCC-160 or NCC-180? Is it a Daedalus
at all, since it's operational far beyond the year 2196?). A registry
of NCC-170 would be much better for the Daedalus. Or NCC-150 if we
really want to fit in the Carolina and decide that its registry was
NCC-160.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> as far as we know - there might easily have been eighteen Lexingtons,
>> of which we only saw two
>
I stand behind my former statement: we never SAW the Excelsior! :-)
>Note: Dr. Lense, Bashir's valedictorian from medical school, served on
>two of these ships. She was originally posted to the Excelsior-class
>Lexington but later transferred to the Nebula version.
Or then she just served on the Nebula all the time, while the Excelsior
version served at the same time in other duties under a different crew.
Or then there was no Nebula Lexington, and it was just a huge coincidence
that there happened to be a random Nebula docked to one of the lower pylons
of DS9 while the Lexington was docked in the opposite upper pylon,
just outside the field of view of the camera. ;-)
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>The Excelsior version last appeared in "Thine Own Self" (Data is stranded
>on a primitive planet, and has amnesia). The Nebula version is in a later
>episode of DS9 (Explorers).
>
>In the latter, Dr. Lense says she transferred to the Lexington something
>like 3 years ago--before "Thine Own Self" took place. The only way to
>reconcile this is, she was posted to the Excelsior-class Lexington, then
>to the Nebula version (which would make sense, if the Excelsior version
>was destroyed or damaged beyond repair, and its surviving crew given a new
>ship--like Kirk's crew was from Enterprise to Enterprise-A).
That would be the first time an already operational ship has been
renamed, besides the apparent case of (Yorktown/whatever) =>
Enterprise-A. I wonder why the Nebula Lexington didn't get
a letter suffix if it was considered such an important special
case.
OTOH, the older Lexington would almost have to be a ship of historic
reputation, in par with Kirk's Enterprise. Why else would Lense
and everybody else have been so excited on getting aboard an ages-old
Excelsior? Or is there only one starship opening per medical course
in Starfleet? Doesn't sound very likely. Well, the whole idea of
a recent graduate getting a CMO position aboard a starship seems
suspect to me - or didn't Liz Lense become CMO?
However, it would deserve an explicit on-screen mention if a swapping
of ships took place. Surely Lense would have remarked on signing on
a historically significant Lexington, only to be transferred to
a run-on-the-mill starship that happened to have the same name?
IMHO, the most elegant explanation, save for completely retconning
out of existence the Excelsior Lexington or blaming the E-D computer
for displaying the registry of the wrong, already retired Lexington in
"Thine Own Self" (did we ever actually SEE that registry there?), is
to say that there simply were two Lexingtons in Starfleet service at
the same time. The Nebula one had been gathering a historic reputation
for a while, under that 60000-range registry, when the Borg threat or
something forced the reactivation of the mothballed older-generation
(14k NCC) Excelsior Lexington.
For all we know, both Lexingtons might still be operational. Or then
one was destroyed in the Typhon sector - the Nebula might have been the
flagship referred to as a casualty, and/or the Lexington that reported
damage, wounded and casualties in the radio chatter moments earlier
might even have been the other Lexington!
Timo Saloniemi
Robert Oliver
> It's unclear if Starfleet is military.
Its primary mission is research, exploration and diplomacy, and that is
what Starfleet would *like* to be doing all the time, but its other
major role is the defense of the Federation, which most definitely
requires Starfleet to function as a military organization. As others
have pointed out, who is fighting in the Dominion War? Starfleet.
Reliant39
--
Steve Pugh
wrote:
>Note: Dr. Lense, Bashir's valedictorian from medical school, served on
>two of these ships. She was originally posted to the Excelsior-class
>Lexington but later transferred to the Nebula version.
That's one possible explanation for the discrepanacy in the timelines
between Thine Own self and Explorers. (and one I haven't heard before)
However I think that dialogue in Explorers strongy implies that it was
the same ship on the same mission.
The Lexington in Thine Own Self is never seen and is never called an
Excelsior class on screen. So why bother acknowledging the class and
registry from the Omnipedia? Even if there is an Okudagram somewhere
in Thine Own Self it can be put down as a computer error....
Steve
--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
Steve Pugh
<this-i...@i-hate-spam.com> wrote:
>Wasn't the USS Horizon, the Daedelus or something along that line the
>first Starfleet ship with registry NX-01 (I believe that is the first registry
>ever)?
The lowest regsitry we've seen is
Steve Pugh
The lowest regsitry we've heard off is NCC-173, USS Essex. A Daedalus
class vessel.
My guess is that a lot of the early registries were assigned to
pre-Federation Earth, Vulcan, Tellarite, Andorian ships which were
transfered to Starfleet command when the UFP was founded. Hence NCC-01
may not be anything special at all. The first Starfleet built ship may
be NCC-150 or something like that.
Cheers,
Steve
--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales
Stephen Richard Pugh http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/ax16/
Robert Oliver
> However I think that dialogue in Explorers strongy implies that it was
> the same ship on the same mission.
I agree that it is implied, although not directly stated in any way.
> The Lexington in Thine Own Self is never seen and is never called an
> Excelsior class on screen. So why bother acknowledging the class and
> registry from the Omnipedia? Even if there is an Okudagram somewhere
> in Thine Own Self it can be put down as a computer error....
My thoughts exactly.
Kasey Chang
--
Kuo-Sheng "Kasey" Chang / MIS Developer / DisCopyLabs / Fremont, CA
K S Y @ I C P . O Address coded
A E C D S O Y C M to foil spam
Reliant39 wrote in message <6pit47$rte$2...@news.worldonline.nl>...
Steve Pugh
wrote:
>If we in turn follow the fanfic system, then NCC-100 can't be right.
>There were only 12 sister ships to the Enterprise at one point in
>TOS, and that was when Starfleet had gotten big and powerful. One
>would then suspect that the Daedalus class was far smaller than 60
>to 80 ships (is USS Carolina NCC-160 or NCC-180? Is it a Daedalus
>at all, since it's operational far beyond the year 2196?). A registry
>of NCC-170 would be much better for the Daedalus. Or NCC-150 if we
>really want to fit in the Carolina and decide that its registry was
>NCC-160.
One of the Jackill's sheets suggests that there were 20 Daedalus class
vessels NCC-170 to NCC-189.
Personally I'd ignore the Encyclopedia refrerence to the Carolina
being of this class. The dialogue on screen about them being retired
by 2196 is perfectly clear. Seems that the Okudas got a bit carried
away trying to force every ship mentioned in TOS into the Daedalus
class. Nowt wrong with the Horizon and Archon, but the Caroline is
well out.
Cheers,
McReynolds
>The Lexington in Thine Own Self is never seen and is never called an
>Excelsior class on screen. So why bother acknowledging the class and
>registry from the Omnipedia? Even if there is an Okudagram somewhere
>in Thine Own Self it can be put down as a computer error....
And if we want, we can still "acknowledge" the Excelsior-class Lexington,
just say that it wasn't the ship in "Thine Own Self." It could have been
retired or destroyed years ago. I'm the sort to try and include everything
we can, and there's no reason to throw out a perfectly nice name and
registry just because it didn't appear in an episode...
-McReynolds
Christopher Adams
> history of the federation. It's the first true starship ever made. And
> the Federation is earth centered so humans would have more pull in which
> has NCC-01 or NX-01.
Whoah, slow down. The USS Phoenix is the first true starship ever made by *humans*.
There is no doubt that the Vulcan vessel that made first contact was a warp ship.
Still, I suspect that given the continuing existence of a non-Starfleet Vulcan fleet
that the Vulcans would not be too concerned if the humans wanted to make the Phoenix
an honorary NCC-01.
Speaking of matters like this, who seriously believes that Cochrane was even around
for the founding of the Federation? (Forgive me if this was dealt with in the TOS
episode - I haven't seen it). It would seem an extremely unlikely step for a
long-lived, logical race such as the Vulcans to rush into combining their certainly
more advanced civilisation with our own. I suspect it might have been quite a long
time before the Federation was actually founded.
I still have problems with a logical, intra-universe reason for Earth to be the center
of the Federation, though . . .
C.
DB
<ada...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>I still have problems with a logical, intra-universe reason for Earth to be the center
>of the Federation, though . . .
Because Earth was the driving force behind the Federation. The
Federation was founded shortly after the Earth/Romulan War, probably
as a means of defense for Earth and it's alien allies.