Mr. Sternbach - greetings! I hope you had a great holiday season... I recently found an image in my archives that I think can be attributed to you, but I'm not sure what ship it was supposed to be. I think it came from this board but am unsure as to its origin. Does anyone know? Any information appreciated.
I believe that's a potential design from 'The Pegasus' where Mr. Sternbach was considering making the Pegasus a Nebula-style Ambassador kitbash. I think they didn't have enough money to do a new design so we ended up with the Oberth again. I, too, would like to know more.
Wait was it ever true that the Pegasus was going to be a Cheyenne Class ship? I remember reading somewhere that it was considered to make it one of these four nacelled ships from the starship graveyard of Wolf 359.
No, that's not exactly true. There was a display in the Pegasus' engine room that "looked like" a diagram of four nacelles, but probably isn't: http://www.box.net/shared/suroa0tes4 Someone just assumed that since the Cheyenne class has four nacelles, the Pegasus was supposed to be Cheyenne class. According to Mr. Sternbach, the Pegasus as finalized in model form would have had design attributes from the Galaxy/Nebula class, but not necessarily four nacelles. Perhaps in future TNG-remastered-form, the ship could be given a better, more logical design than the awful Oberth class model that seemed to get overused in TNG.
Ah it does look like a Nebula-style Ambassador/Galaxy kitbash, I always wondered what that MSD was supposed to look like.
I think the ink drawing assumed Ambassador parts, from what I recall of the general proportions. I don't recall if I did a new systems cutaway for the Oberth-y Pegasus; I'd have to check screengrabs or my TNG files, but don't hold your breath. Rick
If you mean does the diagram use Ent-C parts to make a plausible Pegasus, I suppose it does. No way of knowing for sure, since we didn't actually do it.
And the above ship wouldn't have made a logical Pegasus anyway, for these reasons: 1. The Pegasus was supposed to be a small ship with only a few crewmembers, so having a gargantuan Ambassador-style ship would have been complete overkill, unless it was scaled down. But then... 2. The Pegasus was built only twelve years before the Enterprise-D. By that time, the Ambassador class (and presumably any variants of that class) would have been woefully obsolete. Since Geordi states that the ship's technology was a precursor to the Enterprise's, she should have looked like a mini-Galaxy class starship. 3. Although this isn't necessarily specific to the Pegasus, this design is nothing more than a bad kitbash of the Ambassador class. Having the nacelle pylons stuck to the underside of the saucer instead of the engineering hull makes little sense (I'm only adding this point because I'm aware of Mr. Sternbach's dislike of kitbashes). I would love it if, once TNG is finally released on Blu-Ray, that if any remastering of effects is done, that the Pegasus design is changed from an Oberth into a truly unique GCS-era starship.
Naah. That's when she was being used for phase-cloak trials. She might have been built a century prior, and relegated to testing duties at that time. LaForge calls her a "twelve year old ship" when wondering why the Romulans would want her, but that could well be interpreted as referring to the fact that she's twelve years out of date at the very best, and probably more. Of course, if we want her to be unique, we can always postulate all sorts of intriguing add-on parts in her aft hull, which we never got to see... Timo Saloniemi
Occam's Razor = "a twelve year old ship" really means a twelve year old ship. And anyway, if your theory is right, why would LaForge pick such an esoteric number like "12?" Why not "25," "50," or most logically, "75?" You mean like sticking an oversized Maquis raider to the end of an Intrepid class saucer section?
Occam doesn't work in the world of entertainment - it's all about false moustaches here. Because the ship and her technologies are 12 years out of date, sharp. Even if she happens to be, say, 22 years, three months and two days old. Which she might be, considering that her registry number (NCC-53847) is a tad lower than that of a ship known to operate in 2347 (the Rutledge, NCC-57295)... OTOH, a ship of the same class as the Pegasus, with a nearly identical registry, is given a commissioning stardate corresponding to the early 2360s in "The Naked Now". But since I'm such a fan of chronologically systematic registries, I prefer to explain away that one, too. Several older Oberth class vessels might have been decommissioned for refitting in the late 2350s and recommissioned for various research tasks soon thereafter, including these two and thus excusing the "12 year old ship" comments even when the registry suggests an earlier launch. I've never understood this objection. Why couldn't the "Maquis raider" butt end come in a variety of sizes? It's not as if the aft end of that kitbash is even the same shape as the aft end of the "Preemptive Strike" original - several key pieces are missing, and others have been added. All we're left with is a generic rectangular block, not that different from the aft end of, say, a Miranda. And the end result looks quite sporty... It's not as if one were grafting together Klingon and Starfleet parts or anything. These "Maquis ships" are of Federation make, too, with standard Starfleet graphics flashing on their monitors and all. Timo Saloniemi
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you're giving the writers enough credit for actually logically meaning what they're saying. That's a pretty convoluted way of thinking. When someone asks me how old my car is, I tell them the year it was made, not the year I replaced the engine. I'm glad you brought this up. I've been constantly working on and revising a starship construction timeline based on registries being (mostly) chronological, and I can tell you that the Oberth class registries don't jibe with other ship classes produced at the same time, but they are chronological with other Oberths (It even explains why the Grissom had such a low registry in Star Trek III even though it was practically brand-new). So comparing the Pegasus's registry number with the Rutledge's wouldn't work chronologically anyway. It's too much info to write here, but here's the link: http://www.box.net/shared/sp4ynx9pm5 I was actually just joking about this, but I'll use a better example: the Bozeman. She was supposed to be a completely different class of vessel from the Miranda just because she had some extra doodads and a larger shuttlebay. But I didn't see a new class of ship; I saw the Reliant model with some extra junk on it. So I don't imagine, if the Pegasus looked different behind that rock from a normal Oberth, that it would have looked so different that we'd call it a new class.
It's a holistic thing: the writers of an isolated episode no doubt knew what they were doing, but this doesn't always fit the bigger picture. If the production realities (reuse of a less than perfect ship model) conflict with the rigid interpretation of what the writers wanted, I feel it better to endorse a conflict-free interpretation even if that isn't what the writers originally intended. True. But LaForge already knew that the Pegasus had received new, experimental gear just before her disappearance. His comment would relate to the Romulans' interest in this newest stuff the ship had to offer; if he argued that the Romulans would be disinterested in a 25-year-old ship, he'd be ignoring the important aspect that it had 12-year-old technology aboard. So he'd be explicit and declare that he didn't think the Romulans cared much about 12-year-old tech, either. Brand new? Judging by what? That her interiors looked like they came from the 2270s? But that was also explicitly true of a certain other ship we know was decades old in the 2260s already... Now gimme a few hours while I dive into that intriguing link... Thanks! What's the problem here, though? The story doesn't require the Bozeman to be of a completely new (or old) shape or anything. All it requires is for our heroes to quickly recognize the ship as a type that no longer is in active service - and she's certainly unique-looking enough! In fact, the plot would be less well served if the Bozeman looked like, say, the Kelvin. That's a pretty generic starship shape, and our heroes might not realize so quickly that they were seeing an outdated ship rather than some modern single-naceller. The spires on the Bozeman are quite unique, however, and thus perfectly serve the story. An analogy from today might be the spotting of one of those USN command ships converted from escort carriers: a flattop with her former flight deck bristling with antennas. One definitely doesn't see that sort today, even though one might easily confuse one flattop with another and fail to recognize that the ship emerging from the time typhoon is a WWII carrier, not a modern one... Timo Saloniemi
I hear you. Basically, it all comes down to the fact that the Grissom model was simply not a good choice to represent the Pegasus, and certainly not what the writers intended. Again, kind of convoluted thinking IMHO, but I understand what you're getting at. However, I prefer to go the Occam's Razor route. I might have misspoke here. What I meant was that the Grissom was obviously way more advanced than a ship from decades before the 2270's, like the original TOS Connies, despite having a registry that chronologically places her time of construction in the 2230's. I think the rationale at the time of STIII was that since the Excelsior was such a huge ship, she needed a high registry of "2000," while the Grissom, being a small ship, would have a small registry, never mind that this doesn't make sense chronologically. Any feedback you could give me would be appreciated. I forgot to mention that confirmed facts are in black font, while my conjectures are in blue font.