Uses of the Reliant studio model in Trek

[Dukhat]

I've finished an essay about the various uses of the Reliant studio model (not including any model kit or CGI appearances). Please read at your leisure. Any mistakes are entirely my own.

https://www.box.com/s/076tuchnjr5285o16gg4


Also, here's the first essay I wrote, concerning the Oberth class. One may find it interesting.

https://www.box.com/s/ogjlykhmvdq1inpk2b7p

[Mark_Nguyen]

Good work. If you have this level of detail for ships you "despise", I'd like to see you try out a ship you actually like.

And I'm one in favor of Starfleet having built ships in batches over the years with relatively minor exterior modifications. There's plenty of precedent in real life; the ten Nimitz-class carriers were launched from 1972 to 2006, over the course of 34 years; the Gerald Ford class carriers that will replace them will be built over an even longer period of time. The first Arleigh Burke class destroyer hit the water in 1991 and the class is still being built in the US (with variants built in Japan and South Korea). And the F-4 Phantom was built from 1958 to 1981, with examples of the plane still flying in air forces around the world.

Plenty of reason to believe that Miranda class starships were built in several batches (or "flights" in US Navy parlance) as the need arose. they would be outwardly similar in appearance but the innards could be significantly upgraded with each batch, and to older ships of the class if need be. The aircraft carriers Intrepid and Midway are two examples of old ships that were rebuilt several times over their service life despite having the same basic shapes (angled flight decks nonwithstanding). So, the Brittain could have a relatively modern bridge despite being a module plugged into a hull that was 40+ years old.

In any case, it's still a great summary of the models' usage over the years. Hope you do tackle the Excelsior class at some point. Maybe you hate it, but it's one of my all-time faves mostly BECAUSE it's been seen so much.

Mark

[Dukhat]

Mark:

Thanks for the nice words. I am planning on writing a final essay on the Excelsior, but only for the appearances of either the Bill George model or the Greg Jein version (not the CGI version, which we saw millions of times in DS9).

As for the idea that Starfleet, like the Navy, builds ship classes in batches: Funny you should mention that. One of the reasons why I stated writing these essays was because they were part of a larger project of trying to determine what the conjectural Starfleet classes would look like based on registry numbers, construction times, etc. While I haven't completed that essay, I did finish a rather involved hypothesis of how Starfleet assigns numbers, based on both a chronological scheme and a "batch number" scheme. The result? The batch number scheme tends to make more sense. I can post that too if anyone would like to read it.

[throwback]

About the Brattain -

I am leery about assigning years to stardates, unless I am capable of reaching a point beyond debate that, yes, this stardate belongs to this year.

We know that this starship was commissioned on stardate 22519.5. However, we don't know what year this is. I have seen 40217.3 applied to 2355 ("The Battle") and 38325.3 applied to 2296 ("The Child"). I think it can be said with certainty that the Brattain was commissioned sometime in the 24th century; other than that, it's speculation. (I think people assumed that 22519.5 is in 2245 because we know that 23589.7 ("Sins of the Father") occurred in 2346, but this is really speculation, in my opinion.)

[Dukhat]

Throwback:

That was my original intent for the Brattain when I surmised a chronological registry scheme: That there's no way the ship could have been constructed in 2345, for several reasons, one of which is that two ships with registries of 3XXXX and 4XXXX (the Intrepid and Wyoming, respectively), were already in service when the ship was built. Therefore I surmised that the stardate on the dedication plaque was just incorrect, or from a different, older stardate sytem than the current TNG version. There is evidence the system changed at some point, such as with some of the dates you mention.

However, with a batch number registry scheme, it could possibly work (at least, based on the batch number scheme I personally came up with, based on several factors). I will post it separately.

[Timo]

Minor nitpick: The registries found on the Bozeman are NCC-1941 and NCC-1841, not NCC-1942 as you have in the chapter header.

Regarding the stardates, we should probably distinguish between "launch" and "commissioning" here - both expressions have been used on dedication plaques, and might carry different meanings.

"Commissioning" is always good, because it has historically been the practice to decommission a ship when she enters a long period of maintenance or modification, and recommission her at service re-entry. 23rd century ships could then plausibly have late 24th century commissioning dates, reflecting and emphasizing their "zero-houring" as the result of the refit.

"Launch" could carry the same meaning of "relaunch", but isn't quite as satisfactory thus reinterpreted. Perhaps Starfleet uses "launch" (the first physical deployment of the ship, before the first commissioning) on those ships that have only been commissioned once, and "commission" to denote the most recent commissioning on those ships that have spent some time decommissioned already.

Timo Saloniemi

[throwback]

According to the two dedication plaques used for the Enterprise-D, this ship was launched on SD 40759.5 and commissioned on SD 41025.5.

I don't think it's possible at the resolution we have now to identify the registry on the under side of Bozeman's saucer..

[Timo]

Quite so. Waiting for better pics... But even with the motion blur considered, the significant digit does look very much "filled in" to me, an 8 rather than a 9. The blur doesn't similarly thicken the lower part of the 4.

Timo Saloniemi

[Dukhat]

Timo wrote:

---

Minor nitpick: The registries found on the Bozeman are NCC-1941 and NCC-1841, not NCC-1942 as you have in the chapter header.

Thanks for the catch. I've corrected it and uploaded the updated version. Since the registry was an homage to Steven Spielberg's "1941," I've just settled for that registry, and I'll wait until we have better pics before adding the second registry.

Regarding the stardates, we should probably distinguish between "launch" and "commissioning" here - both expressions have been used on dedication plaques, and might carry different meanings.

"Commissioning" is always good, because it has historically been the practice to decommission a ship when she enters a long period of maintenance or modification, and recommission her at service re-entry. 23rd century ships could then plausibly have late 24th century commissioning dates, reflecting and emphasizing their "zero-houring" as the result of the refit.

"Launch" could carry the same meaning of "relaunch", but isn't quite as satisfactory thus reinterpreted. Perhaps Starfleet uses "launch" (the first physical deployment of the ship, before the first commissioning) on those ships that have only been commissioned once, and "commission" to denote the most recent commissioning on those ships that have spent some time decommissioned already.

While this information is all fine and good (and possibly even true for such ships as the Brattain), until I have official information to this effect, I'm assuming for this essay that the date on the dedication plaque is the date the ship was originally built and/or commissioned. If someone (say, like Mike Okuda) went on record to state that the Brattain was built in 2295, then decommissioned in 2335, and then recommissioned in 2345 with a new registry number, then I'd be the first one to agree with his stance. But since that's unlikely to happen, I'm just going to go under my previous assumption.

[Unicron]

Mark_Nguyen wrote:

---

Good work. If you have this level of detail for ships you "despise", I'd like to see you try out a ship you actually like.

And I'm one in favor of Starfleet having built ships in batches over the years with relatively minor exterior modifications. There's plenty of precedent in real life; the ten Nimitz-class carriers were launched from 1972 to 2006, over the course of 34 years; the Gerald Ford class carriers that will replace them will be built over an even longer period of time. The first Arleigh Burke class destroyer hit the water in 1991 and the class is still being built in the US (with variants built in Japan and South Korea). And the F-4 Phantom was built from 1958 to 1981, with examples of the plane still flying in air forces around the world.

Plenty of reason to believe that Miranda class starships were built in several batches (or "flights" in US Navy parlance) as the need arose. they would be outwardly similar in appearance but the innards could be significantly upgraded with each batch, and to older ships of the class if need be. The aircraft carriers Intrepid and Midway are two examples of old ships that were rebuilt several times over their service life despite having the same basic shapes (angled flight decks nonwithstanding). So, the Brittain could have a relatively modern bridge despite being a module plugged into a hull that was 40+ years old.

In any case, it's still a great summary of the models' usage over the years. Hope you do tackle the Excelsior class at some point. Maybe you hate it, but it's one of my all-time faves mostly BECAUSE it's been seen so much.

Mark

I agree. I also think that Starfleet would have the advantage of longer lasting technology (I think Dukhat has a valid complaint about the models being reused so often for budget reasons, but we don't know how long an "average" lifespan for a design may be in Trek's era) and that it's cheaper in resources to modify an existing design to build a new one from scratch, even with resources like replicators.

I've found where there are several sources in potential conflict over a design (like FASA having two separate variants of the Oberth model, with different names since that designation didn't exist), there are ways to make things fit together seamlessly or mostly fit. FASA first refers to the Grissom as being a Gagarin class, after the cosmonaut, and then mentions an improved Sagan subclass to represent TNG's era (Tsiolkovsky started in this class). The Oberth can be a third refit/variant and the Tsiolkovsky could have been refitted to it in keeping with the canon information.

Same thing with the Avenger/Miranda class issue. Since the Miranda designation wasn't added until TNG, one could assume it refers to older ships that have been modified or refitted and which started out as Avenger types. FASA's Reliant class cruiser variant, based off its own Anton class science cruisers, is a bit trickier (Ships of the Star Fleet had the Miranda/Avengers being descendants of Coventry/Surya TOS frigates), but one could argue Starfleet was working on both at the same time and the Reliant/Anton refit was intended as more of a general ship and not necessarily for tactical duties, where the frigates would have an emphasis.

[Timo]

until I have official information to this effect, I'm assuming for this essay that the date on the dedication plaque is the date the ship was originally built and/or commissioned.

I sort of doubt official information to any other effect is ever forthcoming.

There are two main ways to mess with the information against official or implicit author intent: reinterpreting the meaning of "commissioning", and reinterpreting stardates. There's no onscreen reason to do the first, except in one's own perverseverse to rationalize these things. But there's always "Dark Page" where an in-your-face, low five-digit stardate clearly doesn't follow the pattern set in TNG and other spinoffs for the late 24th century. Perhaps the early 24th really was differently marked in terms of stardates?

Timo Saloniemi

[throwback]

I find, for myself, it interesting that there has never been a stardate in the range 10000 to 20000. I don't why this is.

Then, we have the SD 38774 (2264) for Tuvok's birthday.

[Timo]

In general, one gets surprisingly consistent results if one treats the four-digit stardates of TOS as merely truncated five-digit or six-digit ones. The difference would be the same as between "the sixties" and "the nineteen-sixties"...

Could 38774 fall on 2264, in terms of this interpretation? Well, the "22" part would depend on the dropped first and second digits in a putative seven-digit date, so no problem there. The "sixties" part would depend on the 3. Not a good match for the twenty-four-sixties, where this digit is 4 for years 2264 through 2273. (Or perhaps 2263 through 2272, depending on the month when stardates roll over.)

The "year four within the decade" part would in turn depend on the 8. In TNG, year four is directly associated with the stardate 41986 in the episode "The Neutral Zone"...

So... SD 38774 could plausibly be for example the TOS year 2251, but not 2264, not per this system.

Then again, the stardate comes from "Unimatrix Zero" where Tuvok is slowly being assimilated and going crazy - whereas the birth year 2264 comes from "Flashback" where Tuvok insists he was 29 years old in 2293, during events he is grossly misremembering anyway, due to an alien entity messing with his brain. Not too difficult to dispute either number, or both.

Timo Saloniemi

[USS Firefly]

Interesting article.
Can't wait for your Excelsior article.
Or perhaps of the Galaxy class, my favorite class?

[Dukhat]

USS Firefly wrote:

---

Interesting article.
Can't wait for your Excelsior article.
Or perhaps of the Galaxy class, my favorite class?

Thanks, but I'm not going to write an essay about the appearances of the Galaxy class, because it appeared in every single episode of TNG, one movie, and a smattering in DS9 and VOY (unless you mean instances of the Galaxy class that didn't represent the Enterprise-D).

And really, the intent of these essays (besides just writing them for fun), is to show how many guest starships were intended to be quite different than the old movie models the budget forced them to use. That's why I was hoping that TNG-R would have the same VFX changes that TOS-R had, so that some or all of those models would be replaced with newer CGI designs. In retrospect I'm actually glad that the original film elements are being used instead of CGI, but it resulted in my having to cut portions out of my Oberth essay where I speculated what kind of new ships could be substituted for the old ones. Oh well...