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

[Timo]

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

How can we tell, when TPTB could only afford to show five of the vessels?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the resemblance to the FC ships at all.

The point is that "resemblance" does not exist as a concept. Starships are not alike, as established by ST:FC and a dozen episodes and movies with exotic shapes for starships. Round saucers in particular are in a vanishing minority towards the end of TNG.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

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

How can we tell, when TPTB could only afford to show five of the vessels?

Because most of the other vessels were of classes that we know the design of, even though we didn't see the actual ships on screen. Of the twenty ships, maybe four were of conjectural classes.

The point is that "resemblance" does not exist as a concept. Starships are not alike, as established by ST:FC and a dozen episodes and movies with exotic shapes for starships. Round saucers in particular are in a vanishing minority towards the end of TNG.

But we're not talking about a new late 24th century ship. We're talking about ships that were in operation during Kirk's time. And with that, we're back to square one about the Xhosa looking nothing like a Starfleet vessel from that time.

 

[Timo]

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

We have even less reason to believe in a "Starfleet look" for Kirk's time than for Picard's. Indeed, TOS gives us three Starfleet designs (hero ship, hero shuttle, starbase) while TOS-R adds two (transport and its drone companion), and every one of these represents a different aesthetic. TAS further dismantles the idea of a "Starfleet look".

And never mind ENT, where Starfleet is all across the aesthetic map. The Xhosa or the Batris or even the Rotarran would fit right in, with a proper application of pennant paint. Or without, as ENT ships didn't have pennants in general.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

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

Starships:

ENT: NX-01 - bridge module, saucer and two nacelles.
Half-Saucer - as name implies, half-saucer, bridge module and two
nacelles.
Warp Delta - Delta shaped saucer, bridge module and two nacelles.

TOS: U.S.S. Enterprise and sister ships - saucer, bridge module, secondary hull and two nacelles.

TOS-R: Antares - hexagonal saucer section, bridge module, secondary hull and two nacelles.

Star Trek (Film): U.S.S. Kelvin and sister ships - saucers, bridge modules, secondary hulls, and one, two, or three nacelles.
U.S.S. Enterprise - saucer, bridge module, secondary hull and two nacelles.

DS9: Xhosa - rectangular hull, no saucer, no bridge module, no nacelles, three exhaust ports.


Looks like it couldn't be more different than the norm to me.

 

[throwback]

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

The Armstrong-type starship has three nacelles.

Two transport classes seen by the audience and used by Starfleet, the Sydney-class and the holoship, were rectangular in shape. The major difference between the two is the placement of the nacelles. Other classes of transport ships, either named on-screen and or in the Encyclopedia - the Bradbury-class, the Istanbul-class, and the Yorkshire-class - were never seen.

I don't think it's possible to know what is the norm in each fleet, Of the sixty-plus classes known by appearance or name, and I think there is a probability that there are classes that remain unknown, we have seen no more than 30 classes, and most of these have been capital ship classes. Most water navies have a small number of capital ships supported by a larger number of auxiliary ships, and I don't think it would be different for a space navy.

 

[Dukhat]

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

The Armstrong-type starship has three nacelles.

Fixed, thanks.

Two transport classes seen by the audience and used by Starfleet, the Sydney-class and the holoship, were rectangular in shape. The major difference between the two is the placement of the nacelles.

A case could be made that the main hull of the Sydney class is analogous to a saucer section a la the Miranda class, as it contains a bridge module and two nacelles.
For the holoship, I believe it wasn't a standard vessel, but rather one built for a specific purpose (a giant holodeck). However, the holoship is probably the closest we come to a ship like the Xhosa.

Other classes of transport ships, either named on-screen and or in the Encyclopedia - the Bradbury-class, the Istanbul-class, and the Yorkshire-class - were never seen.

I don't think the Bradbury was ever referred to as a transport, just that it was supposed to transport Wesley back to Earth.

I don't think it's possible to know what is the norm in each fleet, Of the sixty-plus classes known by appearance or name, and I think there is a probability that there are classes that remain unknown, we have seen no more than 30 classes, and most of these have been capital ship classes. Most water navies have a small number of capital ships supported by a larger number of auxiliary ships, and I don't think it would be different for a space navy.

I understand that. And I still don't think the Xhosa is Starfleet's Antares class

 

[throwback]

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

From the episode "Menage a Trois":

Cmdr. Riker:

We'll have you back at Betazed in plenty of time to meet up with the Academy transport ship.

The Academy transport ship is later identified as the USS Bradbury.

 

[Timo]

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

I guess we have some flexibility in interpreting that one, as "Academy transport" could well be a mission identifier rather than a description of the ship's design and structure. You know, like "our escort" could be a battleship or a science vessel rather than a ship classified as Escort.

I mean, I find it a bit unlikely that the Academy would actually operate its own transport ships. What Riker is talking about is the method of transporting Wesley to the Academy, in this case involving a ship, which happens to be the Bradbury.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

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

^This kind of thing happened before (and ironically with Wesley also). Wesley beamed aboard the Enterprise from an Oberth, but earlier Picard stated that he was going to rendezvous with Wesley's shuttle. The word shuttle is obviously referring to the ship's mission, not its type (although in this case, "transport" would probably have been a better word to describe the ship...)

 

[throwback]

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

I am confused. What is a type? What is a mission designation?

According to the Free Online Dictionary, in an entry from Collins English Dictionary, a shuttle is a

a bus, train, aircraft, etc. that plies between two points, esp. one that offers a frequent service over a short route

To my thinking, this description is more like a type, than like a mission designation. Like I said, I am confused.

 

[Albertese]

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

I am confused. What is a type? What is a mission designation?

According to the Free Online Dictionary, in an entry from Collins English Dictionary, a shuttle is a

a bus, train, aircraft, etc. that plies between two points, esp. one that offers a frequent service over a short route

To my thinking, this description is more like a type, than like a mission designation. Like I said, I am confused.

Well, a van can be used as an airport shuttle. In which case, its "type" would be "van," but it's job (i.e., its "mission") would be "shuttle." So I see the distinction.

--Alex

 

[throwback]

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

That helps, thanks.