That's the thing. I don't need a 5 minute exposition on the ship, just better chosen dialog.
"A new type (or testbed) of ship, incorporating Borg technology from the artifact".
Spoilers The NCC-82893 Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
That's the thing. I don't need a 5 minute exposition on the ship, just better chosen dialog.
"A new type (or testbed) of ship, incorporating Borg technology from the artifact".
Many times:
USS Constitution (NCC-1700)
USS Constellation (NCC-1974)
USS Defiant (NX-74205)
USS Excelsior (NCC-2000)
USS Galaxy (NCC-70637)
USS Intrepid (NCC-74600)
USS Oberth (NCC-602)
Of course there must be others, but these spring to mind right away.
Unless, the goal is to make a whole new class based upon the Sagan frame.
Oh, don't get me wrong I totally agree. Part of me feels like these choices were deliberate so we would all be forced to have this conversation. Everything they say is phrased in just such a way to keep it ill defined.
Both.
Makes sense. This is from writers who grew up with Bill Clinton redefining words.
Different Constellations.
The one from TOS (NCC-1017) was indeed a Constitution-class ship. At least it looked like one.
Years later - in service by the time of ST VI - there was a new Constellation (NCC-1974) which was the first of its class.
It has to be "teh 25% different!!!!"
I'm going with the "horseshoes and hand grenades principle."
Did we see all those actual ships, or the registries on a board? I know the Galaxy was supposed to be in a couple DS9 battles, but none of those ships had Reg#'s.
V
Vale
Guest
'
Then the class name is meaningless.
Not necessarily. The Royal Navy has a tradition of sometimes naming a class after a common theme rather than the lead ship of that class. For example, the Duke class frigates are all named after historic British dukedoms – Argyll, Lancaster, Northumberland, Westminster etc – but there is no HMS Duke. Or the River class of offshore patrol ships, which are all named after British rivers – Tyne, Severn, Mersey, Trent etc – but there is no HMS River.
We already have a candidate for a similar naming system for at least one Starfleet class – the California class. We know they're all named for Californian cities – Cerritos, Merced, Rubidoux, Solvang etc – but there could conceivably be no actual USS California as a result.
It seems that "Type 23" was technically the class name for those Frigates. So unless there's an HMS 23, it's definitely an example of the rare side of ship naming.
Canadian navy used to be the same way. They are still themed today, but they have a class name now.
NiceThis is cool ...
(made by Geoffrey Mandel per Dave Blass Tweet)
I like the angle of the nacelles ^ the lower pitched further back than the upper \. Makes it a bit more aggressive.
This ^ "digital blue print" seemed to show them almost flush, they are not it's just a slight distortion.
This capture better confirmed the \ angle.
Last edited:
A couple more kewl images from Bill Krause on Twitter.
Nice!
Also models confirm how much the new NCC-82893 has the lower nacelles pitched further back than the upper (hence the supports).
So how much pre-existed about the 23rd century Radiant Class?
Or was it just entirely made up for the model display?
Ready room.. Model gallery of apparently three gens of Stargazers
Last edited:
Most of the Sovereign class vessels were named after sovereigns (Pachacuti, Gilgamesh, Hutchinson, Hrothgar, Arsinoe) but not all of them (Okuda, Valkyrie, Venture, Enterprise). So just because all the Californias were named after cities so far, doesn't mean there isn't a USS California.
It was created for the display
Similar threads
