Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship classes?

[Albertese]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

I think one of Scotty's techie diagrams (the phaser one IIRC) was labeled for a Constitution-class ship and the widely held assumption is that it was the Enterprise's phasers. But maybe not.

Also, I think Timo's argument is that we know what the exterior of a TOS cruiser looks like and the Xhosa certainly doesn't fit that mold.

--Alex

 

[throwback]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

USS Enterprise's type:
* "A Taste of Armageddon": Anan 7 classified the USS Enterprise as a star cruiser.
* "The Enterprise Incident": A diagram comparing the sizes of the USS Enterprise and an unnamed Klingon warship classified the Federation starship as a space cruiser.
* "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock": A diagram classifies the USS Enterprise as a heavy cruiser, and the Klingons classify the Federation starship as a battle cruiser.

As for the SS Xhosa being a cruiser, this ship isn't the only one from the TOS era that is classified as a cruiser. The Aurora is identified as a space cruiser by Spock. I am thinking that maybe a cruiser in this era referred to a ship that carried both people and cargo.

 

[Albertese]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

^^^

That's a fair notion.

--Alex

 

[Sci]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

The interior of the Xhosa was purposely built to look like a TOS-era ship.

And we do know what TOS era cruisers look like, so that one is right out already.

That's far more logical to me than thinking that Yates just randomly stole some other ship's plaque to hang in her bridge, when if she wanted a plaque so bad she could have just replicated one.

The point of stealing signage is twofold, the humorously appropriate content in them being the one half. The other, more important half is of course the act of stealing...

Timo Saloniemi

Or maybe the Antares class really is classified as a "cruiser," and the idea that she stole her dedication plaque is just full of shit.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

The Aurora is identified as a space cruiser by Spock. I am thinking that maybe a cruiser in this era referred to a ship that carried both people and cargo.

Well, the Aurora appeared to be a pleasure cruiser in the traditional terminology - a luxury yacht stolen from the rich dad.

There's no comparable tradition of referring to freighters as "cruisers" AFAIK. Where on Earth (or off?) did Okuda get that from?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

There's no comparable tradition of referring to freighters as "cruisers" AFAIK. Where on Earth (or off?) did Okuda get that from?

As has already been stated in this very thread topic, the intention was probably that when the Xhosa was originally commissioned back in the mid-twenty-third century, her function was that of a cruiser. By the late 24th century, her outdated design had been converted into a freighter, while the original dedication plaque (which was NOT stolen) still stated the ship's original purpose.

The same thing happened to the Lantree. Presumably it was classified as a heavy or light cruiser during the TMP era, and by the TNG era it had been relegated to supply duty. It probably originally had a crew of several hundred, but a century later was manned only by 30 people, the rest of the ship presumably having been gutted to make more space for supplies.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

^^^ Makes sense - certainly not outside the possibility of repurposing old vessels for new tasks.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

the intention was probably that when the Xhosa was originally commissioned back in the mid-twenty-third century, her function was that of a cruiser.

"Probably"? Why would Okuda be thinking this? It's a really weird idea, Kasidy flying in an old warship for no obvious reason. Or, alternately, the frequently seen freighter type "really" being an old warship design.

Sounds more like somebody screwed up big time. Okay, we can rationalize it away by inventing old warship classes that look completely unlike all other known old warship classes. But that's way weirder than saying Kasidy stole the plaque as a prank.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

Obviously you have trouble getting the idea through your head that the Xhosa as a ship of the line was decommissioned a long time ago and whatever military use it once had is now moot with its new duties as a civilian freighter. I, however, have no problem with this line of reasoning.

As for what Okuda was thinking: It was a background plaque that no TV viewer was ever going to see. Just like the ducks and mice seen in various Okudagrams. I chose to interpret the plaque the way I've stated; how he really meant it, only he knows. Maybe someone should ask him if one really has a massive urge to know. I don't.

But that's way weirder than saying Kasidy stole the plaque as a prank.

I think it's safe to say that you're the only person who thinks this highly illogical thought.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

Then there's no real difference between the assorted rationalizations. At least mine offers the side benefit of suggesting that the Xhosa isn't really even of the Antares class (only the cruiser by that name was), thus eliminating one annoying Antares class candidate from the way too long list of those.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

Then there's no real difference between the assorted rationalizations. At least mine offers the side benefit of suggesting that the Xhosa isn't really even of the Antares class (only the cruiser by that name was), thus eliminating one annoying Antares class candidate from the way too long list of those.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Xhosa/Norkova type of ships are the Starfleet Antares class either, regardless of what the plaque says. I was just stating that your idea that the plaque's information is not valid because she stole it makes no sense at all.

I for one would be perfectly happy having that "Antares" DS9 kitbash being the class ship, provided that it was actually used on screen.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

That'd cover the single reference to a "Starfleet Antares class" all right. But IMHO, that's the reference that is in the least need of covering. We never saw that ship, and we never learned anything about her form or function. OTOH, elsewhere we have heard of an Antares class of freighters, and nothing about the single reference to "Starfleet Antares class" would prevent it from being a freighter. Or, in Starfleet terminology, a transport.

We lose that bit of streamlining (that is, we have to accept at least one extra Antares class in the menagerie) if we insist the "Starfleet Antares" is a non-freighter, such as the DS9 kitbash. We sorta lose it if we insist that there exists an Antares class of cruisers in the witnessed era (regardless of whether the Xhosa is a member of that species or a mere namesake), although we can always say there was a much earlier, non-conflicting Antares class of cruisers that never overlapped the TNG era references.

Personally, I'd be happy to cut off all the dead wood and insist on only a single Antares class of freighters/transports, as there really isn't explicit demand for anything else. The Antares class in "Redemption" was nondescript. The Antares class in "Face of the Enemy" may have been an erroneous identification by our heroes. The Antares identity for the original Batris model is noncanonical. And the Antares identity of Kasidy's freighter does not include the "cruiser" bit except in the backstage sense, as the plaque cannot actually be read.

Which essentially means we can choose a single Antares class for all of Star Trek. In terms of props and models, the choice then comes to between the Miranda kitbash whose name and registry can't be read and the Yates ship whose class and further data can't be read, plus the onscreen Antares from "Charlie X" which is a freight hauler by looks and (among other things) by verbal description. Guess which one is my favorite?

(No, it's not the onscreen ship. If there existed an Antares class continuously from at least "Charlie X" on, then the Miranda kitbash wouldn't fit in the picture... Which would be a shame. Better introduce "Antares class" as late as possible, so that the TOS transport and perhaps Pimenta's artwork and other fanships can remain part of the Trek continuum.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

The one thing that the U.S.S. Hermes (one of the starships in Picard's tachyon detection grid) has going for it is that according to a canonical starship list Okudagram, that vessel is listed as "Antares class" (which was then reproduced in the Encyclopedia...more on that later). That means that Starfleet definitely has a vessel class called "Antares." Despite the Xhosa's plaque, I'm far more inclined to believe that almost all Starfleet vessels from any era share common characteristics, i.e. a saucer section and/or nacelles (but not always an engineering/secondary hull, but that's not important right now). I have no issues with believing that Starfleet, the Federation, and alien governments can have ship classes with the same name but are not in fact the same ships. The problem, as several people have pointed out, is that the Xhosa/Norkova does not share those characteristics at all. Perhaps if the modelmakers had built a more Starfleet-looking freighter for the Norkova (and eventually the Xhosa), there'd be no argument, but they didn't. They reused the Batris in a different configuration and at the same time used bridge interiors that were definitely Federation if not Starfleet.

The problem lies with the Encyclopedia and its outdated information. Okuda, Drexler et. al all but stated in the book's shiplist that the Antares from "Charlie X" and the Hermes from "Redemption" were the same class. However, not only did TOS-R reveal that Captain Ramart's ship was not a Starfleet vessel (and had no U.S.S. prefix), it was also not a class ship at all, if one believes that registries are chronological (the Yorkshire had a lower registry than the Antares and was the same type of ship). The Encyclopedia also did not provide class information for the Norkova or the Xhosa, which might be evidence that the plaque was nothing more than an in-joke and shouldn't have been taken seriously to begin with.

So what does the Hermes, which is undisputably of the Starfleet Antares class, actually look like? We could easily state that the design is conjectural a la the Rigel and Andromeda classes. Or we could say that the kitbash (whether filmed or not) is a viable candidate for the design, even if there's relatively minimal changes from a Miranda class ship. The registry numbers are, while presumably coincidental, quite close together. Conversely, this was just a kitbashed background ship that just coincidentally shares a name with a class ship only because of a rearranging of letters from two Reliant model kits.

I suppose at this point it's really rather up to any one individual's interpretation.

 

[throwback]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

The ST Encyclopedia does identify the SS Xhosa as an Antares-class starship. Strangely, the Xhosa is not in the ship list. This is where me, and others, got the idea that there is another Antares-class out there, and the dedication plaque confirms what is said in the encyclopedia.

I think Mr. Okuda was confused about the designation for the Xhosa. IIRC, the Bajoran Antares-class ship was designated a cruiser in the first edition of the Encyclopedia, which came out in 1994. In 1995, the Xhosa's bridge makes an appearance in the episode "The Way of the Warrior". I suggest that this was an instance of an Okuda-flub. (Like Timo said, the Bajoran class was designated as a carrier, which fits the Xhosa better.)

I am not accepting the idea that the Xhosa was a warship. She lacks weaponry and was lightly protected. The Lantree was still equipped with weapons, though greatly reduced in effectiveness.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

That means that Starfleet definitely has a vessel class called "Antares." Despite the Xhosa's plaque, I'm far more inclined to believe that almost all Starfleet vessels from any era share common characteristics

But the onscreen Starfleet USS Antares from "Charlie X" lacked those common characteristics, and was a transport; the unseen ship from "Redemption" could well be another Starfleet transport, with the highly transport-like characteristics (rows of containers) we witness on, say, the Xhosa. Picard would have use for a tender in his foray into foreign space. Plus, any old barge would be of help, as long as she could carry a tachyon grid node.

Mind you, we don't have to insist that the Xhosa is part of the Antares class at all. But if we chose to believe in a Starfleet transport class named Antares, we'd neatly cover the "Face of the Enemy" reference there, for no obvious penalty. That's basically my sole motivation for preferring this approach; as said, most of this stuff is open to interpretation as long as we ignore the Encyclopedia.

The theory above about how the "Antares Class Cruiser" thing could have happened sounds very plausible, throwback! I'd completely forgotten about that error in the first edition of the book...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

The ST Encyclopedia does identify the SS Xhosa as an Antares-class starship.

I looked in the Encyclopedia last night, and you're right; Okuda does refer to the ship as an Antares class freighter in the entry for the Xhosa. However, he goes on to state that it was a reuse of the Batris, so he seems to be implying that it's the Federation/civilian Antares class, not the Starfleet one.

I am not accepting the idea that the Xhosa was a warship. She lacks weaponry and was lightly protected. The Lantree was still equipped with weapons, though greatly reduced in effectiveness.

Timo said it was a warship, and he only deduced that from the word "cruiser." A cruiser doesn't necessarily have to be a warship.

But the onscreen Starfleet USS Antares from "Charlie X" lacked those common characteristics...

1. It most definitely had what could be considered a saucer section (although shaped more like a hexagon), and it definitely had nacelles. The Xhosa had neither of those things.

2. Okuda said that Ramart's ship wasn't a Starfleet vessel despite its NCC registry.

...the unseen ship from "Redemption" could well be another Starfleet transport, with the highly transport-like characteristics (rows of containers) we witness on, say, the Xhosa. Picard would have use for a tender in his foray into foreign space. Plus, any old barge would be of help, as long as she could carry a tachyon grid node.

Or we could assume that the Hermes is an actual bona-fide starship just like the Miranda class and the twenty-odd other vessels in Picard's fleet, which happens to share a class name with a civilian ship.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

1. It most definitely had what could be considered a saucer section (although shaped more like a hexagon), and it definitely had nacelles. The Xhosa had neither of those things.

Sure she did. Her saucer just happened to be shaped like a pressing iron, and her nacelles happened to be internal.

There's no "saucer" shape that would be uniquely Starfleet (we see round Delta Quadrant hulls in VOY) or uniquely un-Starfleet. And there's no nacelle placement or other engine cowling type that would be uniquely Starfleet or uniquely un-Starfleet.

All that is moot, however, if we're talking about a Starfleet transport ship. We already know that non-generic ships have non-generic shapes: sphere hull for a hospital ship, oblong block with laterally embedded (if still nacelled) engines for a large transport, assorted science vessel configurations, fancy tugs. It would actually be simply boring rather than "consistent" if the Hermes had a saucer-shaped hull and two engine nacelles.

2. Okuda said that Ramart's ship wasn't a Starfleet vessel despite its NCC registry.

There goes his credibility, then...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

Her saucer just happened to be shaped like a pressing iron, and her nacelles happened to be internal.

Which does not fit the known designs of any Starfleet vessels at all.

All that is moot, however, if we're talking about a Starfleet transport ship. We already know that non-generic ships have non-generic shapes: sphere hull for a hospital ship, oblong block with laterally embedded (if still nacelled) engines for a large transport, assorted science vessel configurations, fancy tugs. It would actually be simply boring rather than "consistent" if the Hermes had a saucer-shaped hull and two engine nacelles.

But that's the thing: If the Hermes's class is independent of the Batris family of designs, then there's no evidence that she is a trasport, because we don't know what her design is.

There goes his credibility, then...

That would depend on if one considers the changes made in TOS-R as canon.

 

[Timo]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

Which does not fit the known designs of any Starfleet vessels at all.

It fits perfectly well within the established range of Starfleet designs. We see somewhat flatter pressing irons in the Saber and Steamrunner, and those designs also feature semi-internal nacelles; the engines of the Defiant and of Data's scoutship in ST:INS are fully cowled in.

If the Hermes's class is independent of the Batris family of designs, then there's no evidence that she is a trasport, because we don't know what her design is.

And still absolutely no reason to insist that she's a dull copy of Kirk's vessel.

That would depend on if one considers the changes made in TOS-R as canon.

Without those changes, what evidence is there that the Antares would NOT be a Starfleet vessel? Her officers wear Starfleet uniforms, with insignia that fall well within the spectrum of Starfleet ones.

With the changes, the Starfleet identity of the vessel only gets reinforced: she's of a familiar design, with a familiar registry format and font. If she isn't Starfleet, then we can plausibly argue that most of the vessels seen in, say, ST:FC weren't Starfleet, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Can someone please explain the 23rd-and-24th-century starship clas

It fits perfectly well within the established range of Starfleet designs. We see somewhat flatter pressing irons in the Saber and Steamrunner, and those designs also feature semi-internal nacelles; the engines of the Defiant and of Data's scoutship in ST:INS are fully cowled in.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the resemblance to the FC ships at all. They are clearly Starfleet vessels with saucers and nacelles, not long rectangular blocky ships with three stubby exhaust ports at their rear ends.

And still absolutely no reason to insist that she's a dull copy of Kirk's vessel.

The rest of the tachyon detection grid ships are all "dull copies of Kirk's vessel," so I don't see your point.