how many ship class does Starfleet need?

[Mres_was_framed!]

I always took the TNG Technical Manual's designation of "surveyor" as being the proper designation for a science vessel, with fully-staffed laboratories for long-term planetary and stellar research. In comparison, a "scout" was for more general short-term reconnaissance & border patrol missions, especially at the outer reaches of Federation space. While both surveyors and scouts can perform intelligence-gathering and data analysis missions, surveyors tend to be more science-oriented and can be deployed to study a specific planet or star system for weeks, if not months, IMO.

As far as "explorer," I viewed that as a largely TNG-era term for a ship that investigates and deals with the unknown, regardless if it's in totally uncharted space or in Earth's immediate backyard.

Based on the fact that the Antares in "Charlie X" is also referred to as a cargo vessel, I think it is likely that survey ships are also used to transport resources from planets and areas of space they've surveyed.

ship registry numbers got made based on size

Looking at the FJSTM, I noticed that ships with 1 nacelle have numbers that start with 500 and go to around 640, ships with two nacelles start with 3801 and to to around 3940, and ships with two nacelles in secondary hull start with 1700 and go to 1842. I think, if one regards 3801-3940 as an error and instead substitutes 1000-1140, we get an interesting system that is almost like that used by some automakers for trucks:

500's-scouts/destroyers-1 nacelle
1000's-support vessels-2 nacelles
1700's-curisers-2 nacelles plus secondary hull

This leaves around 500 numbers open between the classes that Franz Joseph developed, plenty of space for the Grissom, a scout, to have a number like 638, which, despite having two nacelles, fits the system be being a scout with a number between 500 and 1000.

So NCC numbers very much can be sequential within a group of similarly-sizes ships, and still also suggest the vessel's size/role.

Container Ship

• Used to haul standard bulk containers
• Containers may be bulk cargo, liquids, transport pods
• Can be made from downgraded line ship

Transport

• Used solely for personnel movement on larger scales
• Larger units used for colonization support & evacuations
• Smaller often make “rounds” on fixed routes
• Most slower; some “fleet transports” for planetary assault ops
• Smaller commanded by LT or LCDR; larger by LCDR, CDR, occasionally CPT
• Can be made from downgraded line ship

In both these cases, I think there is evidence that Starfleet can and sometimes does use older ships for transports/cargo/etc. There are ship models of the Enterprise-A used in TNG with sideways nacelles and the window areas removed and replaced with what appear to be cargo bay doors. Going back to the FJSTM, I was surprised to se how many of the Transpot/Tug ships (which resemble the Miranda of later productions), were named after human explorers. Is this meant to imply there were vessels used for exploration that were later converted to tugs?

Hospital Ship

• High speeds for quick response
• Minimal arms for defense only (except fleet ships)
• High number of transporters; high capacity
• Large shuttle/cargo bays; can be used as triage areas
• Dedicated medical wards, research facilities
• Equipped with special destruct packages to prevent contamination
• Heavily compartmented for danger isolation
• Commanded by CDR or CPT with medical background
• Comfortable crew/patient spaces
• Starbase-based at times

I had forgotten to consider hospital ships earlier, but I think that converted ships with high capacity, like surveyors, cargo carriers, and also outdated cruisers, would work as hospital ships without a class dedicated to them.

Dreadnought and Battleship are nearly redundant

A lot of classes are beginning to seem redundant to me, due to overlap, despite how fun it is to imagine what some of them might be like. In fact, the roles cargo carrier, tanker and surveyor from Sternbach's list might all be carried out by a ship like Franz Joseph's Ptolemy, and even further reduce the need for many designed.

Rather than develop ships for numerous roles, like battlecruiser/heavy cruiser/cruiser/light cruiser, I am beginning to get the impression that Starfleet uses fewer class designations (like maybe just the six I mentioned), but is developing new versions of ships for those six roles with each generation of starship.

For example, the Ptolemy can cover perhaps three of those roles, but eventually newer Miranda's are made instead, and later Centaur's, and later..Nebula's?? Starfleet might need to send all four classes into battle, in which case, the four classes, in that particular battle, might get assigned as Ptolemy-cargo carrier, Miranda-destroyer, Centuar-light cruiser, Nebula-heave cruiser, based on that battle at that location.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Based on the fact that the Antares in "Charlie X" is also referred to as a cargo vessel, I think it is likely that survey ships are also used to transport resources from planets and areas of space they've surveyed.

All starships are used to carry cargo to various places at one time or another, regardless of their classification/designation, IMO. When not exploring strange new worlds, the original Enterprise was often used to ferry supplies and/or passengers whenever called upon. I would submit that a ship's classification merely describes her primary purpose, but otherwise, most Federation starships are multipurpose, and are routinely used as transports as they are sometimes either the fastest (or the only) ship in a given region.

 

[DEWLine]

They all double as mail carriers...

 

[Ithekro]

A massive war footing buildup in the 2280s and into the 90s, with some finished by the Tomed Incident would explain some of the masses of Miranda and Excelsior class ships all over Federation space in the 2360s.

 

[publiusr]

Looking at the FJSTM, I noticed that ships with 1 nacelle have numbers that start with 500 and go to around 640, ships with two nacelles start with 3801 and to to around 3940, and ships with two nacelles in secondary hull start with 1700 and go to 1842. I think, if one regards 3801-3940 as an error and instead substitutes 1000-1140, we get an interesting system that is almost like that used by some automakers for trucks:

500's-scouts/destroyers-1 nacelle
1000's-support vessels-2 nacelles
1700's-curisers-2 nacelles plus secondary hull

This leaves around 500 numbers open between the classes that Franz Joseph developed, plenty of space for the Grissom, a scout, to have a number like 638, which, despite having two nacelles, fits the system be being a scout with a number between 500 and 1000.

So NCC numbers very much can be sequential within a group of similarly-sizes ships, and still also suggest the vessel's size/role.

That was my guess as well

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

All starships are used to carry cargo to various places at one time or another, regardless of their classification/designation, IMO. When not exploring strange new worlds, the original Enterprise was often used to ferry supplies and/or passengers whenever called upon. I would submit that a ship's classification merely describes her primary purpose, but otherwise, most Federation starships are multipurpose, and are routinely used as transports as they are sometimes either the fastest (or the only) ship in a given region.

The shows definitely indicate that any starship can do many roles. I would go so far as to suggest that Stafleet may insist on that. Taking the FJSTM as an example for the sake of clarity, the Federation may have many scouts, but what makes the Hermes a "starship" when it does not "look like the Enterprise," is that it could cruise, transport, scout, survey, etc., acceptably, but with various levels of efficiency.

However, in "Charlie X," Kirk directly refers to the Antares as a "cargo vessel" in his log, but later also calls it a survey ship. Kirk did not say "The Antares, a survey vessel is carrying cargo," or "The Antares, a cargo carrier, is surveying this system." So I think that, at least in the Antares case, it would have to be classified as both a cargo vessel and a survey ship. That does not mean the Antares could not do other roles like scouting or cruising. It also seem logical that if a vessel was surveying for resources, it might be made to transport a significant quantity of them to a base.

That was my guess as well

I find I usually do consider the Franz Joseph NCC numbers as canon...as the numbers and names of ships that were requested by Starfleet, but not necessarily what was built and the numbers/names that were ultimately assigned.

Interestingly, of the names I recognize that were used for the transport/tugs, many are names of astronomers. There are also more of these ships listed than ether the destroyers or scouts. Was Franz Joseph meaning to imply that these ships, despite being called transports/tugs, were used for surveying territory, and could either return with a personnel pod with more scientists, or a cargo pod of various types to collect resources? It sort of lines up with what we see with the very similar Miranda, just a saucer and two nacelles doing mission-specific tasks on the edge of known territory.

 

[Unicron]

I always assumed FJ wanted a large number of transport/tugs for shuttling essential supplies across space, though of course there were mission pods that give them more flexibility as well. I've always been of the mind that futuristic technology shouldn't seem too convenient in terms of what it can accomplish.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I always assumed FJ wanted a large number of transport/tugs for shuttling essential supplies across space, though of course there were mission pods that give them more flexibility as well. I've always been of the mind that futuristic technology shouldn't seem too convenient in terms of what it can accomplish.

I agree, though I find it peculiar that his conception of the fleet had so much shipping, when the shows make it seem more like Starfleet vessels patrol and defend shipping (in addition to exploring), rather than do so much of the shipping themselves.

Perhaps he was thinking along the lines some fans do, that some classes that were used as cruisers or scouts could be modified for use as cargo ships? But that conflicts with the "build sheets" on the back of the specification pages, where he claims that a number of the "transport tugs" were ordered to be built as part of the founding of the Federation (on stardate 0965!).

 

[Unicron]

I happened to be watching "The Cloud Minders" on the local network last night, and the dialogue specifically suggests a starship like the Enterprise wouldn't normally be ferrying cargo, but could pick up emergency supplies (medical, in this case) as needed.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I happened to be watching "The Cloud Minders" on the local network last night, and the dialogue specifically suggests a starship like the Enterprise wouldn't normally be ferrying cargo, but could pick up emergency supplies (medical, in this case) as needed.

I was thinking of that line when making my prior posts. In light of that line, why would the "transport/tug" even be considered a "starship" and be made from components that resemble those of the Enterprise?

I like the design of the Antares in TOS-R, but the fact that it has an NCC number but a S.S. before the name is a bit of a contradiction. If the Antares is a surveyor/cargo carrier class of starship, which would be suggested but it having an NCC number, it should have a U.S.S. before the name. If, as many fans and some behind-the-scenes material suggests, it was part of an out space "merchant marine," then the S.S. makes sense but its having very similar nacelles to the Enterprise and an NCC number makes less sense (though it is not impossible).

Had the Okudas gone with a Ptolemy class transport/tug, that would have confirmed the Antares as a different class of starship--and multiple classes exiting in TOS, whereas adding a bridge module to the TAS grain ship leaves it ambiguous...which is probably why that approach was chosen.

I'd be curious to hear from those who consider only TOS and TMP to be canon on their thoughts about the choice of configuration for the Antares. I'd even more like to hear their opinions on the concept that ships whose registries start with 16 may be very different internally but look the same externally. Assuming they had enough time to paint and film the model for episodes showing other ships, would that have been an approach Jeffries would have considered? Or, time and budget allowing, would Jeffries have insisted on ships doing in other roles being different models?

 

[Dukhat]

I was thinking of that line when making my prior posts. In light of that line, why would the "transport/tug" even be considered a "starship" and be made from components that resemble those of the Enterprise?

I could be misremembering, but I read somewhere that the original intent was that only the Enterprise and other ships of the ‘Starship class’ had a saucer/secondary hull/twin nacelle configuration, and that all other ‘lesser’ vessels would look nothing like them. Rather, their designs would be based on whatever function they were built for. It was FJ that went the route of ‘all Starfleet ships utilize components of the TOS Constitution class,’ and all iterations of Trek since then, whether canon or not, have gone FJ’s route.

I like the design of the Antares in TOS-R, but the fact that it has an NCC number but a S.S. before the name is a bit of a contradiction. If the Antares is a surveyor/cargo carrier class of starship, which would be suggested but it having an NCC number, it should have a U.S.S. before the name. If, as many fans and some behind-the-scenes material suggests, it was part of an out space "merchant marine," then the S.S. makes sense but its having very similar nacelles to the Enterprise and an NCC number makes less sense (though it is not impossible).

The CGI model of the Antares doesn’t actually have an ‘S.S.’ before the name. It only has ‘Antares’ written in the red stylized font used for shuttlecraft on the hull. I’m not sure why Okuda did that.

Had the Okudas gone with a Ptolemy class transport/tug, that would have confirmed the Antares as a different class of starship--and multiple classes exiting in TOS, whereas adding a bridge module to the TAS grain ship leaves it ambiguous...which is probably why that approach was chosen.

Okuda couldn’t use the Ptolemy design at the time because it was owned by FJ’s estate.

I'd be curious to hear from those who consider only TOS and TMP to be canon on their thoughts about the choice of configuration for the Antares. I'd even more like to hear their opinions on the concept that ships whose registries start with 16 may be very different internally but look the same externally. Assuming they had enough time to paint and film the model for episodes showing other ships, would that have been an approach Jeffries would have considered? Or, time and budget allowing, would Jeffries have insisted on ships doing in other roles being different models?

While I don’t consider ‘only TOS and TMP to be canon,’ I will say that I didn’t really care for Okuda using the TAS automated grain ship with a command module for the Antares. It was a pretty unoriginal choice, and I would have preferred the design from Bjo Trimble’s Concordance.

 

[Ithekro]

The Refit Nx-01 Enterprise I believe has her name written on the new secondary hull as "S.S. Enterprise".

 

[DEWLine]

I would think that "UES Enterprise" works better. More defensible in a trademark court case...?

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

The CGI model of the Antares doesn’t actually have an ‘S.S.’ before the name. It only has ‘Antares’ written in the red stylized font used for shuttlecraft on the hull. I’m not sure why Okuda did that.

I apparently did not remember that. It sounds like that choice by Okuda sidesteps the question of whether the Antares is a "starship" or a "(space)merchant marine" ship.

Okuda couldn’t use the Ptolemy design at the time because it was owned by FJ’s estate.

Interesting. I thought that the intellectual property of all Star Trek books of this nature were owned by whoever owns the Star Trek property.

That would make for a weird court case: Paramount owns the shapes of the components, but Franz Joseph's estate owns the configuration of those repurposed components. Who would own the work? Who would own the designs for the altered necks/pylons he used to mount deflectors and nacelles on those classes he created?

 

[Dukhat]

Interesting. I thought that the intellectual property of all Star Trek books of this nature were owned by whoever owns the Star Trek property.

That would make for a weird court case: Paramount owns the shapes of the components, but Franz Joseph's estate owns the configuration of those repurposed components. Who would own the work? Who would own the designs for the altered necks/pylons he used to mount deflectors and nacelles on those classes he created?

From a past post about the FJ Dreadnought (emphasis mine):

http://www.trekplace.com/fj-kdint01.html

There are several places in the interview where the tech manual is mentioned. Here's one of the relevant quotes:

"FJ kept meticulous records as to which drawings he was working on and how long they took, and NONE of the "non-canon" material in the TM was produced after the contract for the motion picture was signed. Further, GR had already seen all of FJ's extrapolative material in 1973 and 1974. FJ was very concerned about doing anything extrapolative in GR's universe, and made a point of sending "in-production" materials from the Technical Manual to GR on a regular basis, including all the speculative stuff like the new ship designs. GR only responded with words of encouragement. If GR had said "no," or "stop," or "this isn't how I envisioned it," or "this conflicts with another project I'm working on," FJ would have dropped it or changed it immediately. GR never said a single negative word.

Again, in FJ's own words: "FACT: A copy of the Articles of Federation were sent to Gene Roddenberry on 22 June 1973. His reply of 28 August states: 'I thought the Articles of Federation were extremely well thought out and presented, although I have some question in my mind whether they are a bit too long to maintain fan interest.' FACT: Copies of the Fleet Ship Classifications and the Dreadnought 3-view were sent to Gene Roddenberry on 22 June 1973. At no time during the preparation of the Manual did Gene ever mention he objected to these types. In his reply of 28 August 1973, he did state: 'Your drawings jump right off the page to the reader and are very exciting.'"

Now stay with me here, 'cause this is the most important part of this whole interview. If you follow the FJ Timeline through 1975 and 1976,Paramount rejects script after script from GR and others, while FJ's Plans and Manual climb the bestseller lists to astronomical heights. GR's head must have been ready to explode. Then, if you read further, Paramount starts to court FJ as a consultant for the movie but FJ declines any involvement. At that point, Paramount and GR have the same problem. Because of the aborted Lincoln Enterprises deal to publish the Plans and the Tech Manual in 1973, and because Lou Mindling of Paramount allowed FJ to copyright the Manual in his own name in 1975, neither GR nor Paramount owns the rights to FJ's original work (such as the Star Fleet space station, the Dreadnought and other ship designs, the UFP"two faces and starfield" logo, etc.). [The rest of this paragraph is pure speculation, but I don't think I'm too far off the mark.] GR doesn't want to use FJ's designs because he feels he has had little control over their creation and no control over their publication, and he'll be damned if he'll pay royalties to an outsider for stuff spun off from the universe he created. Further, FJ has proven difficult to deal with in other encounters (PlanetEarth) and GR doesn't want to go through that again. Paramount desperately wants FJ to be involved with the movie because FJ's work is so enormously popular, but FJ is not being a "teamplayer" and agreeing to be a consultant or a writer on the project. If FJ is not going to be directly involved so they can exploit his name in their publicity, then Paramount doesn't want to pay him royalties, either.

After that point, everything in the movies was either designed to directly contradict FJ's work, or to modify designs or concepts first put forward by FJ to make them just different enough that FJ could not claim copyright infringement (especially the UFP logo you mention in Q12). In retrospect,knowing what a "control freak" GR was about the series and the movies (as documented in many written accounts), none of this is a surprise to me."

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

GR doesn't want to use FJ's designs because he feels he has had little control over their creation and no control over their publication

In a universe that as-of-that-time had only been shown from a few viewpoints, simply deciding to avoid using material from the FJSTM to avoid paying royalties and giving up other control does not seem that self-centered, actually, and I say that as someone who still considers parts of it canon. When did contradicting it directly actually start, and did that ever really reach the screen?

I know that Andrew Probert gave a Trekyards interview that showed how he was told that ships "needed" two nacelles, and how a one-nacelled ship in a concept painting was avoided in the movie. But since only one drydock was shown, and that worked for good dramatic effect, nothing in TMP seems to actually contradict the FJSTM, and beyond that, Berman's guidelines did recommend avoiding ships with one or three nacelles, but that was no followed closely.

The "line of sight" rule would seem to contradict the Ptolemy when carrying a pod, but simply revising the struts would fix that. (I'm not a fan of the Ptolemy being unable to go to warp while towing, as that would defeat the purpose of having a "starship" do the job, as opposed to some other freighter.) One could even keep the design close to the way it is but add that the struts can extend to get line-of-sight below the pod.

I've still not read the whole interview. Is there any hope of trekplace going to https soon so that I can view that site with a web browser set to higher security?

 

[Dukhat]

In a universe that as-of-that-time had only been shown from a few viewpoints, simply deciding to avoid using material from the FJSTM to avoid paying royalties and giving up other control does not seem that self-centered, actually, and I say that as someone who still considers parts of it canon. When did contradicting it directly actually start, and did that ever really reach the screen?

I know that Andrew Probert gave a Trekyards interview that showed how he was told that ships "needed" two nacelles, and how a one-nacelled ship in a concept painting was avoided in the movie. But since only one drydock was shown, and that worked for good dramatic effect, nothing in TMP seems to actually contradict the FJSTM, and beyond that, Berman's guidelines did recommend avoiding ships with one or three nacelles, but that was no followed closely.

The "line of sight" rule would seem to contradict the Ptolemy when carrying a pod, but simply revising the struts would fix that. (I'm not a fan of the Ptolemy being unable to go to warp while towing, as that would defeat the purpose of having a "starship" do the job, as opposed to some other freighter.) One could even keep the design close to the way it is but add that the struts can extend to get line-of-sight below the pod.

I've still not read the whole interview. Is there any hope of trekplace going to https soon so that I can view that site with a web browser set to higher security?

In a nutshell, it was when Roddenberry was executive producer of TNG during the first season that he put the kibosh on all things Star Trek that he wasn't making any money from. That included FJ's tech manual, the FASA roleplaying games, and anything else Paramount had given a license to for the purpose of expanding the Star Trek universe that Paramount wasn't making a profit from. He then came up with the bogus 'starship design rules' which he pulled out of his ass specifically to invalidate every ship design in FJ's manual, because he couldn't kill the book directly like he could with FASA etc. Fans and TNG production personnel alike (such as the aforementioned Probert) adhered to these 'rules' without really understanding the intent behind them.

So it wasn't a matter of Roddenberry wanting to use the designs but couldn't because he didn't own the copyright. It was, as FJ's daughter stated, that he didn't want those designs used at all because he would not get paid or their use, and would have to pay FJ.

Now, with all that said, FJ would also allow his designs to be used in ADB's Star Fleet Battles, which is an RPG that has had a license from him since 1979 to produce their games. From what I understand, the license allows ADB to make the game based on TOS and TAS but cannot use copywrited concepts like Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, the Star Trek name, etc. and can’t use anything past TAS in their made-up universe. Essentially the same situation as FJ’s Manual, Paramount can call it non-canon but can’t have them cease-and-desist because the license is from FJ, not them.

 

[publiusr]

Good.

 

[MikHutch]

I know this is off tangent but I'd like to see another spherical saucer section. Like the Olympic class