Spoilers Tech issue with 1x06

That works pretty well: They were the only two "Crossfield refit" class ships. Crossfield was the design most easily adaptable to S-drive requirements. Maybe Glenn NCC-1030 was an old Crossfield that was upgraded, then Discovery NCC-1031 was the first scratch-built Crossfield-R (just rolled off the assembly line).

But it still could just be that this naming a ship after its class thing never really was a hard and fast rule in Starfleet.

 

This could also explain how Discovery has a lower registry number than Enterprise but is considered newer. (Of course we all know that the registry is only a Halloween reference so maybe it shoulden't be taken literal.)

 

Has anyone brought up, in relation to the earlier floated ‘took the name from another ship’ that the ship is named for the Shuttle Discovery? We have had enterprise, Columbia, Challenger..so there is a theoretical antecedent and may even shed some light on story choices?
(Nearly an expressly military shuttle, and the first to be retired....)
Discovery could even be the class ship, following on from Enterprise being the class ship for the NX class, as another ENT throwback.
Maybe we will get Star Trek: Atlantis, finally set after NEM, and starring Ben Browder and Claudia Black (I am not enough of a Stargate viewer let alone fan to worry that they didn’t go to the Atlantis show...it’s a joke, though one with potential.
..

Though they would make awesome new faces for Q and Q.)

 

No, if Discovery was the class ship, then it'd be Discovery class. The term "Crossfield class" is meaningless without a USS Crossfield to name it after.

We already know the Federation Starfleet names classes after the first ship to be built. In fact we've seen several class ships, such as the Constitution, Galaxy, Ambassador, Prometheus, Defiant, Excelsior, Oberth, etc.

In ENT, on the other hand, ship classes were normally just one or two letters. NX for ships of the line, J, Y and DY for freighters, etc. That's how the Earth Starfleet did things.

 

The only canon lead ships we've seen physically are the Defiant, Prometheus, Excelsior and the Galaxy.

The USS Intrepid, USS Constellation and USS Oberth were listed on computer screens.

We've seen a picture of a NCC-1700 but it was never given a name on screen. Constitution comes from non-canon sources.

An USS Ambassador has never been seen or mentioned in any show or movie.

However the ones that do exist show a trend in naming.

 

Then we have to with the novels approach...the class ship is in pieces somewhere having done its job, just like Vesta was before Janeway gave some engineers a very big model kit indeed.

 

It seems like the remarkable thing that the Bynars did was pass the Turing test with Minuet's conversation, but all in all Picard and Riker can still tell she's something produced by the holodeck. I always assumed that even with replication, and even with the most advanced holograms on the level of Minuet, the holodeck was never perfect. It was enough to fool people into thinking it was the real thing...



...But only for a moment. And in DSC, not even for a moment.

In TNG, environments may be able to fool people long enough to allow transfer to different planets, except both times this was attempted it was cut short before we could see how well it would have worked (Homeward and Insurrection), and Picard was skeptical the first time it was brought up.

In Future Imperfect, Barash probably has something even more advanced, possibly incorporating some telepathy like the Talosians.

 

Must have been mainly telepathic - it failed mainly due to things like slow computers (turbolifts, data's inability to do some fairly basic maths)

 

The 'first ship of the class is the Class name' was started with the (non-canon) Franz Joseph Star Trek Technical Manual' (Circa. 1975). They seemed to go along with this convention for the Excelsior in STIII:TSFS - and occasionally in the TNG era (IE the Defiant from DS9 is a 'Defiant-Class' ship.) How prevalent it is/was outside of those instances on screen, in Starfleet of either te 23rd or 24th century, who knows.

 

Doesn't matter. They still exist. Mentioning them - in dialogue or on a screen or dedication plaque - is good enough.

 

I just saw this thread. This is my opening to weigh in.

I have two thoughts. First, we saw a holodeck in TAS in "The Practical Joker". Second, I subscribe to the idea that the TNG holodeck is like an Xbox and the DSC holodeck is like an Atari.

Third thought. I think we'll have some form of a holodeck in this century. Probably within my lifetime and possibly yours (depending on how old anyone is reading this). Will it be a TNG holodeck? No. But it'll be something.

 

But we didn't physically see them, they could be any class. There is no canon evidence they're the lead of that class. There have been times before where two ships have shared the same name (The Nebula Class USS Prometheus, and the Prometheus Class USS Prometheus being one)

Anyways John Eaves has said that they should be following basic Starfleet convention and have lead ships for each of the classes in DSC.

 

Umm, no. Neither J, Y nor DY were Starfleet designations at all. They were civilian designations of civilian ships, terminology spoken by the very Boomers who owned and flew the vessels (and Starfleet saw no reason to contradict them on that).

What Starfleet of the day had was the Neptune class, and possibly the Triton class.

Oh, and the NX class. But given the evidence, it was probably the Enterprise class of NX class vessels, just like the USN has the Ticonderoga class of AEGIS class vessels, and loved to refer to those as AEGIS class vessels exclusively before the Arleigh Burke class of AEGIS class vessels joined the mix.

NX might well stand for Naval eXplorer, of which the Enterprise explicitly is the very first. These ships designed for deep space exploration would obviously need to be a special breed, meaning Archer and his organization would brag on them being NX vessels and thus (literally) lightyears ahead of other types of starship such as the three classes of NC cruisers or the six classes of ND destroyers or those old Neptune and Triton class NV class surveyors.

Of course, since the UE Starfleet apparently never manages to introduce another design of the NX category, there's no need for anybody to abandon the practice of calling Archer's ship that way.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Whether the Trek folks would have a native holodeck in the 21st century is debatable. Their spaceflight tech is well ahead of ours from the 1960s onwards, and their computers seem to get a bit of a boost from Henry Starling's time travel antics until the 1990s, but their entertainment tech doesn't get explicit praise.

And in 2063, Earth makes contact with the galaxy. And out there, everybody has holograms of some sort. It may be that the Vulcans try to keep humans from obtaining warp engines or death rays, but would they block the importing of alien holotech? Earth might be unmotivated to develop any of its own beyond that point, what with its traders and explorers constantly meeting folks with better and better systems for sale.

Indeed, they're not valid proof.

It's just that the default position ought to be "class with a proper name is named after lead ship" because that's how it always and invariably happens here on the real Earth. It would require extraordinary proof to establish that Starfleet somehow does things differently.

Of course, not all ship classes in Earth history have had proper names. For famous examples, the Soviets didn't use class names, although they gave proper names to the projects that led to the creation of a ship design. The Nazis never really used class names, either. But we're not talking about something obscure-obvious like whether the Type VII Class is named after a vessel named Type VII. We are talking about Crossfield class.

I mean, yeah, it might be something else in addition to being a proper name, too. The Royal Navy has all these County classes without a single HMS County, for obvious reasons. Perhaps Starfleet has starships named on a theme of crossfields (whatever those are - the future humans are perfectly free to come up with a definition)?

...And likewise starships named on a theme of famous previous starships, hence all those Starship classes of theirs?

Timo Saloniemi

 

21st Century Humans as Pakleds? I can believe that.

 

It seems to be a winning strategy, puttering around in a primitive spacecraft waiting for a clueless passerby to come offer help. It worked for Khan, it worked for the Xyrillians, for all we know it's what the Boomers really did for a living, too.

What is the first Earth hologram we see in action? Those holotargets for phaser practice in ENT? But we never get a "Hologram? What is a hologram?" moment from any character, no matter how early. Nor a "Hologram? That's no hologram, it's freestanding and visible form all directions in daylight!", for that matter. Nor even a simple "Wow, fake 3D imagery!" with or without specific mention of "holograms".

Timo Saloniemi

 

Yeah -- I'm late to this party as well (Thanks, thread resurrector!)

...But I agree. A TNG holodeck makes solid objects out of light and force fields, objects with which people can interact in a variety of physical manners. The simulation we saw in DSC ep. 6 may mot have had solid objects with which to physically interact, but simply projected holograms that are interconnected with the simulator's gun in such a way to simulate being shot.

The TNG Holodeck was far more than just projected holograms. Until we see that the DSC crew can physically touch and feel these simulations, I would not say that it does the same thing as a TNG holodeck.

 

The DSC holosimulation allowed Ash Tyler to slam his palm against a door control so that the door would close, and then lean against the wall.

Now, it's quite possible that there was nothing for Tyler to actually slam, and his hand in fact hit empty air (with an accompanying fake sound effect). But just a decade later, in TAS, we see that a holodeck can produce an intense sensation of cold, the impression of impenetrable hedgerows, and the sensation of falling into and climbing out of a pit. It would be simple and logical to assume the same things are available in the DSC simulation, even if in slightly more primitive form. Or, if not in that simulation (which was apparently improvised in a room adjacent to the armory, not dedicated to simulations of that sort), then in other simulations in dedicated recreation rooms aboard NCC-1031 or her contemporaries.

The breakthrough would be the application of forcefields, and those are a new technology for Earth in the ENT 2150s. At that point, Earth already produces visual 3D illusions, used for target practice. But enjoyable interaction with a physical environment might have to wait for a while. Clearly it's not yet a thing in ENT, because the holodecks of "Unexpected" and "Oasis" impress and confuse our heroes. Although the latter encounter at least might trigger intercultural exchange that gives Earth the sort of holodecks we witness in DSC and TAS!

Timo Saloniemi

 

...As for legs on the roll-out piano, what's wrong with roll-out legs? I for one would like to have legs on my roll-out piano.

Timo Saloniemi

 

The "holodeck" on Disco is nothing more than a glorified version of the NES game Duck Hunt.