RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,944
Posts: 5,479,332
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 581
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 13 2014, 06:35 PM   #136
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

I'm not aware it was ever officially established what NCC stood for, other than Matt Jefferies' US/USSR crossover (NC + CCC = NCC).

If we went for Pippin209's (Welcome to the BBS) analogy it could stand for nuclear (N) FTL (C as for speed of light) cruiser (C).

While Matt Jefferies suggested himself that the "01" of the Enterprise should stand for a construction number ("first of the 17th series"), NCC-1697 (worse should it be 1897 ) would indicate the 97th ship (!) of the 16th series (and no more ships allowed after the 99th has been finished ).

IMHO this is not compatible with only "12 ships like her in the fleet" remark of Kirk in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", so I'd rather interpret the last two digits as a contact code.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 03:23 AM   #137
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
...

If we went for Pippin209's (Welcome to the BBS) analogy it could stand for nuclear (N) FTL (C as for speed of light) cruiser (C).

...

Bob
This is basiclaly how it is in my own personal Star Trek universe. I like to have the N stand for "Starfleet(naval)," the first C standing for "FTL(Lightspeed=C) and the last C standing for "Combatant" meaning that it is armed. By the time of TOS and later, this classification would make basically all ship's in Starfleet NCC- ships, so it works for me.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 12:35 PM   #138
Sean_McCormick
Captain
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Kenny wrote: View Post
Oops.

I made a mistake. The NCC-1707 source for the Intrepid is not Franz Joseph (he used NCC-1708).

NCC-1707 comes from the FASA Ship Recognition Manual published in 1985.

This demonstrates how Paramount was officially eclipsing (or nullifying) Joseph's work by the time Star Trek IV was produced in 1986.

-- Kenny
It is very doubtful to me, that this is due to input from Paramount. IMHO apart from a very wide general standard of decency (so, no "Deltan Sex Guide" or "Klingon Torture Manual"), the only thing Paramount was interested in, was that the licence fees were paid on time.
This is cetainly the impression on how treklit were managed at the time.

Also, for there to be an anti-FJ agenda, there are far too many one-nacelled ships in the FASA materials.
Sean_McCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 03:00 PM   #139
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Although FJ and GR fell out pre-TMP, the 'anti-FJ agenda' didn't really take hold until Next Gen got started, when Roddenberry's "rules of starship design" came along and and Mike Okuda was told to ignore what came before. It's detailed in this interview with FJ's daughter Karen.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; January 14 2014 at 03:34 PM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 04:25 PM   #140
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

^^ Sorry, but I'm afraid this one falls under the category of urban legends.

Here is the exact Probert quote: "Gene specified to me, in fact, that starship warp engines operate in pairs... only in pairs because they're codependent. If you had one warp engine, you'd probably go in a circle, I don't know..."

Andrew Probert already drafted the officers lounge scene from TMP with an energy field clearly visible between the two nacelles and commented that to create this kind of field you need a pair of warp nacelles (i.e. 2 at least), so apparently Gene told him this already during production of TMP.

And all warp-capable ships prior to TNG, the TOS Enterprise, the Aurora, the Klingon Battlecruiser, the Surak shuttle, the Grissom etc. always had a pair of warp nacelles, so it stood to reason that this was and is the minimum requirement of nacelles to create a warp "field" and what truly "came before".


I can't see any "anti-FJ Agenda" here. If Mike Okuda decided to prefer Greg Jein's registry numbers for the TOS sister ships of the Enterprise over the FJ ones for his Encyclopedia, it's probably because
  • Bjo Trimble had already used Jein's conjectural numbers for the Star Trek Concordance
  • Greg Jein also worked on TNG as did Mike Okuda
I'm not aware of any executive order from Gene Roddenberry to Mike Okuda (?!) to ignore the works of Franz Joseph or the like. Such a claim should be beefed up with some solid evidence, IMHO.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 04:53 PM   #141
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Perhaps Mike Okuda or someone else on the TNG staff could pop in and give their side of the story? GR approved FJ's stuff when it was drawn/written - whatever their status now, they were at one time considered as official as the later TNG manuals became. Was there a specific dictate to ignore FJ's manual and blueprints or not, and if so who did it come from?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 11:35 PM   #142
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Didn't the original Mudd's Women ship have no nacelles? And the Tholians and First Federation? And didn't the XCV ship on the TMP rec deck wall only have a single effective ring (yeah, it's 2 rings back to back, not side to side.) Wouldn't Roddenberry had to have approved those non-two nacelle side by side designs?
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 12:12 AM   #143
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

  • Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship
  • Tholian ship - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion but could accomodate warp coils in two of its wings
  • First Federation vessel Fesarius - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion
  • XCV-330 Enterprise ringship - form of propulsion unknown and conjectural (interplanetary or interstellar vessel?)
Even when I just look at Matt Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise designs - especially the TOS Enterprise "ringship" - it really looks like a warp engine pair was the one thing "written in stone" by Gene Roddenberry from Day One on and long before FJ showed up with his one-engined designs.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 02:04 AM   #144
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: The mockingjay soars
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

I agree with Robert that I haven't seen a lot of evidence for the "anti-FJ" conspiracy. I've gotten the impression that insofar as needing paired nacelles, which is the only true "Roddenberry Rule" that I know of, there exists evidence that Gene had that preference outside of FJ's work and believed that single or odd arrangements wouldn't work, because of the codependency. It's certainly logical to assume that paired nacelles are more efficient in some ways than odd-numbered arrangements.

There's also an interview with FJ himself (which I'd have to dig up) probably around the movie era, and he stated that he didn't feel any specific bias from Gene or Paramount regarding his work, and also that he would have happily changed anything had the request been made. Some of his comments and opinions don't jive with those expressed by his daughter in the later interview, but I'm sure they were both honest and saw different aspects.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Unicron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 03:22 PM   #145
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
  • Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship

We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.



Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
  • Tholian ship - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion but could accomodate warp coils in two of its wings
  • First Federation vessel Fesarius - alien technology that could use some yet unknown form of FTL propulsion

Although we do see in these early sketches a 3-part configuration which would suggest that MJ looked at more than 2 nacelles or parts but didn't explore 1 nacelle too much. Didn't some of his interviews mention that his aircraft background influenced him to design for at least 2 engines to give it redundancy?



Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
  • XCV-330 Enterprise ringship - form of propulsion unknown and conjectural (interplanetary or interstellar vessel?)
Even when I just look at Matt Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise designs - especially the TOS Enterprise "ringship" - it really looks like a warp engine pair was the one thing "written in stone" by Gene Roddenberry from Day One on and long before FJ showed up with his one-engined designs.
The ringship also featured in MJ's sketches as well with the rings back to back which is more inline with a single engine (but two rings for redundancy?) approach.

The existence of ships that do not have two side-by-side nacelles in TOS would point to Roddenberry forming his rule after the series, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 03:38 PM   #146
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

The issue of redundancy is a strong candidate for having more than one nacelle - why take the risk of being stranded utterly compared to limping home on half power?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 04:28 PM   #147
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
  • Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship
We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.
What? Seems to me that the image of Mudd's ship is the only image we ever see of the ship. And we never get any other angle on it. And given the shape of this angle on it, I would assume it's the port (maybe starboard?) side of a ship that might be a large cousin to a shuttlecraft. Not unlike the FASA Tavares-class freighter. That ship has twin nacelles, so I can't agree that the image we see of Mudd's ship rules out it's having nacelles.

(Though Mudd's ship from STID is another ball game... Honestly I forgot what that looked like as I only ever saw the movie once in the theater and that was a while ago now...)


Mytran wrote: View Post
The issue of redundancy is a strong candidate for having more than one nacelle - why take the risk of being stranded utterly compared to limping home on half power?
This is a reasonable argument, though it suggests that single nacelles are perfectly capable of being used by themselves. If indeed they are required to be paired, then the pair should be considered a single operational unit and you would need a ship with four nacelles (Constellation-class) to get a redundant design...

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 05:50 PM   #148
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

I believe Mudd's ship from Into Darkness is an extrapolation from the original shape seen in "Mudd's Woman", minus the golden glow (a raised shield?):

(the ID ship is upside down)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2014, 12:13 AM   #149
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Looks like I'm a minority here, but I could swear that the original VFX footage clearly suggested we were looking at the stern of Mudd's ship. That would apparently make it asymetric (i.e. higher components on the port side), but that's exactly what another freighter from another famous franchise is.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2014, 12:56 AM   #150
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: NCC = Not Constitution Class?

Albertese wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
  • Mudd's ship - difficult to tell because it looks like all we ever saw was the stern of the ship
We saw the stern and stern quarter view. Its enough to rule out any obvious nacelles on it.
What? Seems to me that the image of Mudd's ship is the only image we ever see of the ship. And we never get any other angle on it. And given the shape of this angle on it, I would assume it's the port (maybe starboard?) side of a ship that might be a large cousin to a shuttlecraft. Not unlike the FASA Tavares-class freighter. That ship has twin nacelles, so I can't agree that the image we see of Mudd's ship rules out it's having nacelles.
Based on that view of Mudd's ship on the view screen it looks like the stern/port stern quarter view of a disk-like object with a wedge rear-end. There are no nacelles on the sides in a 2-nacelle configuration. The only obscured view is the starboard and bow and unless they were short and stubby and placed directly in front or on the starboard of the ship in a very narrow configuration I'm maintaining that the ship could does not have any nacelles
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.