Precisely.
Last edited:
The "First Contact" ships: Registry too low?
- Thread starter t_smitts
- Start date
The annoying thing there is that Sabers are among the least numerous ships witnessed in DS9. Apparently, either small size doesn't equal mass production after all, or then the small ships produced in great numbers get vectored to completely different theaters of operation (perhaps because they are too small to take much part in the fights where the bigger ships are numerous).
It's possible that one era has many different looks, especially by virtue of having overlapping old and new looks. But is it possible for one look to be spread across multiple eras? Not just in the sense of ancient ships soldiering on, but in the sense of new designs on that same vein being introduced? The persistence of Mirandas to the 31000 registry range isn't quite the same thing; only the introduction of an all-new design with LN-64 and the thin saucer but a registry in that high range would.
Timo Saloniemi
And one was supposed to represent a "looks" that was bowing out even when we first met her, while another represented the future that was about to begin, leaving one "middle note", and then the Oberth...
It's possible that one era has many different looks, especially by virtue of having overlapping old and new looks. But is it possible for one look to be spread across multiple eras? Not just in the sense of ancient ships soldiering on, but in the sense of new designs on that same vein being introduced? The persistence of Mirandas to the 31000 registry range isn't quite the same thing; only the introduction of an all-new design with LN-64 and the thin saucer but a registry in that high range would.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps the Sabers are useful in a niche role, such as scouting?
Last edited:
The Starfleet Registry is a complex beast that doesn't seem to make alot of sense. I figured the Akira Class Project and the Saber Class Project and so on, were developed initially prior to the Galaxy Class Project and assigned numbers at the time of initial drawings, well before the construction phase and probably before naming or crew assignments.
After this, the ACP and SCP and so on hit some type of design flaw or were assigned to fleetyards given less turnover or simply the GCP (and so on) were fast-tracked to the construction phase perhaps due to the use of reliable, well-tested technology (New Orleans/Springfield-type ship) and planned use as the next fleet of grand explorers in the Starfleet image.
The great jump in registries from the Excelsior 2000 range to the Ambassador 10000 range is attributable to a broadening of the Starfleet Registry to include smaller ships, perhaps non-Starfleet ships, and other oddities that were not counted prior to 2300 or so. The USS Nash (NCC-2010-5), a Sydney-class runabout presumably from the 2290s, almost shares its registry with the USS Jenolen (NCC-2010). Perhaps runabouts didn't receive their own registries, but this was later rectified.
The Excelsior 40000s seem to be ships launched in the Excelsior class much later (probably 2330s or so) than the original group.
After this, the ACP and SCP and so on hit some type of design flaw or were assigned to fleetyards given less turnover or simply the GCP (and so on) were fast-tracked to the construction phase perhaps due to the use of reliable, well-tested technology (New Orleans/Springfield-type ship) and planned use as the next fleet of grand explorers in the Starfleet image.
The great jump in registries from the Excelsior 2000 range to the Ambassador 10000 range is attributable to a broadening of the Starfleet Registry to include smaller ships, perhaps non-Starfleet ships, and other oddities that were not counted prior to 2300 or so. The USS Nash (NCC-2010-5), a Sydney-class runabout presumably from the 2290s, almost shares its registry with the USS Jenolen (NCC-2010). Perhaps runabouts didn't receive their own registries, but this was later rectified.
The Excelsior 40000s seem to be ships launched in the Excelsior class much later (probably 2330s or so) than the original group.
One web site commented that the Steamrunner made its appearance during the border war with Cardassia.
http://wiki.bravofleet.com/index.php?title=Steamrunner_Class
On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Steamrunner appeared during the 2340s.
www.ditl.org/ship-page.php?ClassID=fedsteamrunner&ListID=Ships&ListOption=fed
.
http://wiki.bravofleet.com/index.php?title=Steamrunner_Class
On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Steamrunner appeared during the 2340s.
www.ditl.org/ship-page.php?ClassID=fedsteamrunner&ListID=Ships&ListOption=fed
.
Last edited:
Or then, at the turn of the century, Starfleet decided that the registries should move forward by 10,000 units every decade, quite regardless of how many ships were built during that decade.
No doubt more ships were built in the 24th century decades than in the 23rd century ones, and increasingly more at that. But the total might fall significantly short of 10,000 in the 2360s and 2370s still, so the calendar-based system would be in no danger of "choking up".
Especially if we want to accept that between the 2160s and the 2260s, just 2,000 or so ships were entered into the registry. Or 3,900 if we accept the highest Star Fleet Technical Manual registries that may or may not have appeared on screen during the movies... But since the numbers "soon jump" to the 8,000 range for some Constellations, we might be better off assuming they were already up to 5,000-6,000 in the 2260s and only added a couple of thousand in the two most hectic decades of Klingon conflict.
Timo Saloniemi
If you think about the registry numbers too much your brain could suffer a warp core breacha migraine at the very least. I gave up trying to make sense of it especially when there were Constitution class ships from: (from memory alpha)
Eagle NCC-956
Constellation NCC-1071 (decal switch for cost reasons)
Enterprise NCC-1701
Intrepid NCC-1631
Potempkin NCC-1659
Eagle NCC-956
Constellation NCC-1071 (decal switch for cost reasons)
Enterprise NCC-1701
Intrepid NCC-1631
Potempkin NCC-1659
One thing about this is the Norway CGI files were lost after First Contact, maybe the same happened to the Saber & Steamrunner, don't recall seeing many at DS9, just the Akira.
It's debatable whether any of the unseen ships on that list were Constitutions.
The only one we really saw were the Constellation; the Intrepid originally went unseen and even in TOS-R was presented from angles that didn't allow for the registry or even the name to be properly read. The Potemkin was originally "seen", but only from angles that did not reveal that she was in fact the Enterprise, and TOS-R did not change matters much.
So the Intrepid still remains a ship of unknown registry and possibly also of unknown class (indeed, the very fact that we saw a ship at the start of "Court Martial" should establish that this cannot have been the Intrepid), and the registry of the Potemkin remains unknown. Technically.
There were probably more Steamrunners than Akiras in DS9, but for some reason fewer Sabers...
Timo Saloniemi
The three other FC ships (Akira, Steamrunner, Saber) along with a Miranda (U.S.S. Saratoga, scanned from the physical model), were originally built by ILM for the film, then were remapped for use in DS9. The original Norway mesh disappeared, so that ship was never remapped. The Akira, Steamrunner and Saber classes appeared prominently in the DS9 fleet scenes along with the aforementioned ILM Miranda.
There were three different versions of the Akira eventually- the original created for First Contact and two follow ups where some of the lines and details were changed to make it look better. Thomas Sasser had all three files as reference to produce a master but Round 2 decided to do their own then cancelled the model kit quietly. Off all the CGI ships designed for First Contact only the Akira had a lot of detail and could be seen close up, the others were simpler and had some short cuts taken.
The Norway also was the CGI construct with the most shortcuts taken. Many classic starship features such as phaser strips were left out altogether (where the other designs had those painted on as flat "decals" and the Akira had actual raised and detailed features), and the ventral side apparently received no paint job at all, or perhaps had Defiant paint copy-pasted as suggested by some publications. And the nacelle "field windows" that usually glow blue failed to receive that color and appeared white; there was no impulse engine glow of any color.
This is a bit surprising, as the Norway also appears to have been built with "functionality" in mind: its nacelles are rather obviously intended to slide forward and aft on rails. Something like that would no doubt have been put on the foreground in ST:FC or it wouldn't have been worth the effort - so why not priorize the Norway and get it finished in Akira-like glory?
Perhaps finishing the model to a better resolution would have been necessary for its use for midrange let alone foreground DS9 shots, and there was little point in using it at the far background? Losing the files might have been no loss.
Timo Saloniemi
This is a bit surprising, as the Norway also appears to have been built with "functionality" in mind: its nacelles are rather obviously intended to slide forward and aft on rails. Something like that would no doubt have been put on the foreground in ST:FC or it wouldn't have been worth the effort - so why not priorize the Norway and get it finished in Akira-like glory?
Perhaps finishing the model to a better resolution would have been necessary for its use for midrange let alone foreground DS9 shots, and there was little point in using it at the far background? Losing the files might have been no loss.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps Starfleet had performed major upgrades on the Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, and Saber classes that were originally used during the first war with the Cardassians? The TMP Enterprise looked quite different from the TOS Enterprise, after all, and its supposedly the same ship.
I agree the real world reasons are due to the Norway files being lost (already discussed) and that the Akira model had been the more detailed for close shots especially like those in "Message in a Bottle".
As for more Steamrunner over the Saber I would guess the animators may have felt the Saber didn't look as good as the Akira and Steamrunner and to instead use those as well as the older ship designs.
In universe its possible these were used more as scouts, border, planetary and outpost defence. Most spec briefs (either coming from production sources or fan made) tend to suggest these ships were slightly larger than the Defiant with slightly smaller more conventional firepower but generally a more traditional ship which could fit the part.
We know there were at least a couple of other Defiant Class ships built by the time of the Prometheus if we assume one is not the Defiant, and even if we do the Sao Paulo was brand new and it can't be the Valiant.
As for design queues I think they can suggest a rough time frame but many of these ships mix and match details; Prometheus and Equinox share queues from the Sovereign but have details from the Intrepid and Galaxy like escape pods, its been argued that the Steamrunner, Akira and Saber look more TNG ish but other than the Saber have pods which look more like the Sovereign as well as other features.
I have always thought they fit best somewhere between the TNG and FC era's in terms of development; some may have been originally designed during the Cardassian Wars (some sources I have read suggest this for the Steamrunner) others due to the Borg or independently either side. As for design features like escape pods they could have been tweaked on the individual space frame design when the pods for the Sovereign were designed.
I doubt Alex Jaeger thought much into when the ships were built and instead concentrated on designing distinct ships which would look new and exciting yet very different to the new Enterprise.
I'd like to think that lifepod or pod-hatch shapes aren't particularly era-related. We know that the very same design of pod hides below the square hatches of the Voyager and the concealed/armored hatches of the Defiant anyway: the nature of the "garage" might not matter much, and the vehicle parked within might vary from year to year or from individual ship to individual ship, even within a class. Or, for all we know, from hatch to hatch in a given ship!
Saying that the triangular hatches indicate a transition from Galaxy to Sovereign is allowed. But we could just as well say that they mark the very opposite transition - triangles are a relic of the mid-24th century, and the Sovereign their last vestige, while the Galaxy and truly modern ships like Intrepid or Nova or Prometheus have the more modern square model (also perhaps refitted to some bigger ships of old such as Ambassadors). But the third option is to say that there's no era connection whatsoever.
Timo Saloniemi
Saying that the triangular hatches indicate a transition from Galaxy to Sovereign is allowed. But we could just as well say that they mark the very opposite transition - triangles are a relic of the mid-24th century, and the Sovereign their last vestige, while the Galaxy and truly modern ships like Intrepid or Nova or Prometheus have the more modern square model (also perhaps refitted to some bigger ships of old such as Ambassadors). But the third option is to say that there's no era connection whatsoever.
Timo Saloniemi
My thoughts are similar; while the outside hatches of the Intrepid, Prometheus, Nova and Saber class all look the same as the Galaxy it doesn't mean that the pods stored in the bays are exactly the same between those 5 classes nor even from ship to ship within those classes. That said I would assume they probably are as Starfleet appear to like to make things like that more or less standardised even in the 24th in comparison to bridges, corridors and even shuttles appear to be tailored to the class of ship where as a century earlier ships were much more standardised (being all the bridges used were based on the Enterprise for budget reasons other the TSFS Excelsior).
For instance if we go by the TNG Tech manual the Galaxy pod, or at least from the original builds, were very different to those found on Voyager and the Defiant/Valiant which in my own personal head cannon are the standard pods for the fleet including the Nova, Saber and at least new build Galaxy Class ships.
As for the triangular pods, if the shape of them and specific details suggest they are the same between the Sovereign, Akira and Steamrunner, they do not necessarily suggest a period of construction any more than the relative design of details like the nacelle ramscoops (though there is a fairly natural progression from Galaxy > Intrepid > Nova > Sovereign > Prometheus) and instead could overlap time periods suggesting that they are simply designs from competing production companies which Starfleet sources parts from and the designers of those ships chose for whatever reasons.
Basing that on information within "Mr Scott's Guide" where different manufacturers of Warp Nacelle were mentioned for the Constitution Refit and Excelsior as well as the 2 types of Phaser seen before STV.
I would possibly debunk the triangles vs squares idea though as the Galaxy is clearly an older ship than the Intrepid and Sovereign and then the build 2 Nova had a different style of triangle pods in the early 25th.
For instance if we go by the TNG Tech manual the Galaxy pod, or at least from the original builds, were very different to those found on Voyager and the Defiant/Valiant which in my own personal head cannon are the standard pods for the fleet including the Nova, Saber and at least new build Galaxy Class ships.
As for the triangular pods, if the shape of them and specific details suggest they are the same between the Sovereign, Akira and Steamrunner, they do not necessarily suggest a period of construction any more than the relative design of details like the nacelle ramscoops (though there is a fairly natural progression from Galaxy > Intrepid > Nova > Sovereign > Prometheus) and instead could overlap time periods suggesting that they are simply designs from competing production companies which Starfleet sources parts from and the designers of those ships chose for whatever reasons.
Basing that on information within "Mr Scott's Guide" where different manufacturers of Warp Nacelle were mentioned for the Constitution Refit and Excelsior as well as the 2 types of Phaser seen before STV.
I would possibly debunk the triangles vs squares idea though as the Galaxy is clearly an older ship than the Intrepid and Sovereign and then the build 2 Nova had a different style of triangle pods in the early 25th.
Interestingly, in the Sovereign, the "hatch" is part of the lifepod. Supposedly that's its heat shield, although why 24th century spacecraft would require such things when even the smallest have powerful engines available smacks of belt-and-suspenders. Not that this would be a bad thing for a survival aid...
A Sovereign pod wouldn't be readily interchangeable with any other sort, then - functionally or in terms of dimensions. But neither would a Saber pod, as those square hatches must be really, really small for a ship only about 170 m long. Perhaps one-person pods, for a crew only about twice as large as that of the similarly sized Defiant?
What does Starfleet standardize on? They don't even believe in sockets and plugs much. Well, every spare part imaginable can be replicated, so probably there's little need to even consider standards.
Timo Saloniemi
A Sovereign pod wouldn't be readily interchangeable with any other sort, then - functionally or in terms of dimensions. But neither would a Saber pod, as those square hatches must be really, really small for a ship only about 170 m long. Perhaps one-person pods, for a crew only about twice as large as that of the similarly sized Defiant?
What does Starfleet standardize on? They don't even believe in sockets and plugs much. Well, every spare part imaginable can be replicated, so probably there's little need to even consider standards.
Timo Saloniemi
Real World the Sovereign class had the triangular escape pods because they wanted to make the ship look as new and different as possible and those pods would be featured in the film being used.
In Universe I think it is just two design approaches and it depends more on preferences. Personally I think the cube shaped ones, while not as visually exciting are more practical for interior volume and gaggling options.
In Universe I think it is just two design approaches and it depends more on preferences. Personally I think the cube shaped ones, while not as visually exciting are more practical for interior volume and gaggling options.
