Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

[throwback]

I based some of my list on information at Memory Alpha. I re-checked the dialogue, and you are right Timo.

I am puzzled by the SS Xhosa being classified as a 'cruiser'. The Xhosa is not a warship nor a cabin cruiser (pleasure boat). This ship is a freighter.

For those, like me, who don't remember or haven't watched Buck Rogers, here is the model kit for the Draconian Marauder.

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/DRACONIAN MARAUDER PAGE.htm

 

[Dukhat]

I am puzzled by the SS Xhosa being classified as a 'cruiser'. The Xhosa is not a warship nor a cabin cruiser (pleasure boat). This ship is a freighter.

Based on the dedication plaque alone, I would speculate that the vessel was once a Starfleet cruiser back during the TOS/TMP era, and by the TNG era it was relegated to freight duty (like the Lantree in "Unnatural Selection"). The Norkova was definitely in use by the Federation, if not Starfleet, and its interior looked similar to TNG-era Federation and/or Starfleet vessels. The Xhosa, the interior of which looks to be from the TOS era, could have been sold by the Federation and/or Starfleet to an independent owner, no longer being a ship of the line.

The only drawback to this theory is that the ship does not look in any way like a Starfleet vessel, with the usual saucer/nacelle configuration.

 

[Timo]

Based on the dedication plaque alone (and indeed that's all there is to base anything on!), I'd say that Yates pinched or otherwise obtained the dedication plaque of the 23rd century Starfleet cruiser USS Xhosa of Antares class, or at least a good replica thereof, and thought that it would look cool on the wall of her own freighter SS Xhosa of Masai class.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

Another thing to consider: when the class of a military vessel is mentioned today, it can indicate one of two things - the specific design of the ship, or the intended purpose of the ship. That is, if a ship is identified as Ticonderoga class, you can tell she's built to the same specs as several other vessels of which USS Ticonderoga was the first; if she is identified as minehunter class, you can tell she's built for minehunting. (There's a grey area unless you know the terminology, of course; you might mistake "AEGIS class" for the first case when it's actually the second.)

However, when the class of a civilian vessel other than cruise ship is mentioned, it's virtually never the first case, and basically always the second. If you see a container ship, it's unlikely she would represent a class in the sense of being built to the specs of a pathfinding ship; she might well be unique, but what I mean is that her "lineage" would most probably be irrelevant to you. But you would be highly interested in whether she's Panamax class, New Panamax class, Aframax class, or perhaps Malaccamax class.

Quite possibly "Antares class" could be a Star Trek universe expression for ships in the size range of Kasidy Yates' freighter, then, encompassing hundreds of distinct designs and variants as long as they share the size. Or some other attribute of relevance to Star Trek freight hauling...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Based on the dedication plaque alone (and indeed that's all there is to base anything on!), I'd say that Yates pinched or otherwise obtained the dedication plaque of the 23rd century Starfleet cruiser USS Xhosa of Antares class, or at least a good replica thereof, and thought that it would look cool on the wall of her own freighter SS Xhosa of Masai class.

I'm pretty sure that was not Okuda's intention when he made the plaque.

 

[Timo]

Who cares?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Who cares?

I would imagine, someone who'd want to know if Okuda meant for this ship to be the Starfleet Antares class or not, based on the similarity between its dedication plaque and the TOS Enterprise's dedication plaque.

Of course, for all we know that kitbash could be the class ship. But I've always been under the impression that kit bashes were not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Timo]

It appears unlikely that Okuda would have wanted either to create additional confusion on the Antares issue, or to clarify the issue. One wonders if he ever knew what the Xhosa would end up looking like, perhaps having missed "The Passenger". And it's even harder to believe he would have been thinking in terms of the Starfleet Antares class fleetingly mentioned in one of his graphics in "Redemption".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

That's probably true. As a matter of fact, I hope it's true. And if he made that plaque as nothing more than an in-joke, that'd be fine too. However, my point is that unless we're told otherwise, it's still a possibility that the Xhosa and Norkova were once Starfleet Antares-class vessels now relegated to freight duty.

 

[Timo]

Given the suggestive design of the ship, I'd prefer to speculate that in such a case, the Starfleet Antares was always a transport, and her mission was not altered for the DS9 era. The only "Starfleet Antares" unit we have to worry about was the Hermes from Picard's blockade fleet in "Redemption", and it could well be argued that a fleet needed a logistics support vessel, or that any tub with a warp engine and room onboard for a tachyon generator would do.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Considering that Picard seemed to hastily gather his fleet from wherever he could get ships (i.e. the Sutherland was still in dock being repaired, and didn't even have a commanding officer when it was called to duty), then lumping an old available freighter into the mix is plausible.

However, there's still the issue of the ship looking absolutely nothing like a typical Starfleet vessel, and looking more like an alien ship, or at worst, a ship from an enemy of the Federation!

Of course it's also possible that the Hermes is not this type of ship, and there's a distinct difference between the Starfleet Antares class and the Federation Antares class.

(wondering if a new thread topic is needed about now...)

 

[Timo]

On the other hand, the design looks extremely generic - this model and its big sister are encountered all across the galaxy. If it's a good and easily available design, why wouldn't Starfleet make use of it? Everybody is an enemy of Starfleet at some point or another, but an ally later on; giving money or other compensation to the people who provide ships like this need not be contrary to UFP interests.

Although we could always postulate that all Starfleet ships of this design are actually war loot. Qualor II had its share of alien vessels, including a veritable clan of ships previously seen operated by Talarians. A past war with that culture is already established; perhaps captured transports saw lots of use even if captured destroyers were deemed useless?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TIN_MAN]

I think the safest bet is that Okuda simply intended a nod to "Charlie's" Antares and “TOS” in general, as a sort of “Easter egg” with no further continuity issues attached than that, and nothing more? So beyond this meager intent, the field is wide open for speculation?

 

[Dukhat]

I think the safest bet is that Okuda simply intended a nod to "Charlie's" Antares and “TOS” in general, as a sort of “Easter egg” with no further continuity issues attached than that, and nothing more? So beyond this meager intent, the field is wide open for speculation?

Yeah, you probably hit the nail on the head here. It's just fun to speculate about this stuff.

 

[publiusr]

I liked Brian Pimenta's Antares, but I would have made the saucer smaller for his drawing.
http://www.trekships.org/antares.htm

Being a red supergiant--it needs to be the name of a shuttlecarrier though...

 

[Timo]

The total of Antares references in "reasonably official" fanon/RPG/novel/comic material, as per Memory Beta, seems to give us Starfleet ships of that name fairly frequently, in terms of registries and likely launch dates.

We have this NCC-501 (no doubt a misreading of NCC-G01, of course! ) from TOS-R. Then there's Pimenta's NCC-717. Then comes the FJ Constitution starship, NCC-1820. Two FASA ships next, although their chronological ordering appears different from the ordering suggested by their registries: the Loknar at NCC-2714 actually comes before NCC-1820, and then the Constellation follows both at NCC-2514. Now insert this DS9 ship at NCC-9844...

This collection doesn't pose continuity problems as such, as we can assume an older ship was always lost or retired before the newer one came along. (We would have to assume NCC-501 was slotted after NCC-2714, from the 2240s, and before NCC-1820, from the 2270s, but that ain't really a problem. NCC-717 could slip in wherever/whenever we like.)

Okay, that FASA Constellation is a bit too much, perhaps; then again, the entire FASA lists of Constellation and Excelsior names have to be discounted in any Grand Theory of registries, as they trample on way too many toes.

The problem lies in inserting an actual "Antares class" in there: none of the starships mentioned above should be considered the class ship, probably, as it would be pretty silly for Starfleet to name any later ship Antares when the class by that name is still going strong. And choosing the last Antares in that collection for the class ship doesn't work out, either, as it's a stock Miranda with minimal changes: for the 24th century at least, minimal changes shouldn't result in a separate class designation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

We have this NCC-501...from TOS-R....

Which, chronologically speaking, shouldn't be the class ship for the Starfleet Antares class, if only because her sister ship the Yorkshire was NCC-330.

...and then the Constellation follows both at NCC-2514.

This is from The Next Generation Officer's Manual, the closest FASA ever got to a TNG technical manual before they lost their license to make Trek RPGs. I own a copy, and while a lot of their ship diagrams (especially the Constellation Class) are wildly inaccurate, it's an interesting book nonetheless. Do you own a copy too?

The problem lies in inserting an actual "Antares class" in there: none of the starships mentioned above should be considered the class ship...and choosing the last Antares in that collection for the class ship doesn't work out, either, as it's a stock Miranda with minimal changes: for the 24th century at least, minimal changes shouldn't result in a separate class designation.

Well, here's two facts: One, there's not a lot of numerical difference between the Antares NCC-9844 and the Antares class Hermes NCC-10376, and two, there is a precedence where two ships of very close design are in fact two separate classes: the Miranda and the Soyuz (and the Antares is from that family apparently). Of course, the exact opposite could be said of the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B, which are the same class...

However, I'm sure the intention was not to make this kitbash into one of Okuda's conjectural classes from the Encyclopedia; it was most likely a simple rearranging of letters and numbers from two Reliant kits, and the name was coincidental.

Also, don't forget the once-semi-canonical/official Jeri Taylor novel Pathways, where she makes Chakotay's raider Antares class...but at this point that book is pretty much out of the running for various reasons.

 

[Timo]

Which, chronologically speaking, shouldn't be the class ship for the Starfleet Antares class, if only because her sister ship the Yorkshire was NCC-330.

...Assuming the two really were of the same class. Perhaps they sported different modules, making all the difference, considering how little we saw of the Yorkshire?

Personally, I will ignore both registries, not only because they conflict with more interesting fanon ones, but also because giving NCC numbers to drones like that will deplete the stock far too quickly. TAS had the right idea in adding prefix letters; both Antares and Yorkshire might get a G, although the former might also have an F.

Do you own a copy too?

Alas, no.

Since our single datapoint on a Starfleet Antares class is so vague (being TNG era and five-digit, it's even beyond the reach of speculation on sequential, "batch" registries being in use in the TOS and TFS eras), I wouldn't sweat it much. Having it be a Miranda batch is fine with me - although since the datapoint comes from a TNG era computer readout and we have zero evidence of "subclass" names from that era, as opposed to lots of fanon and some canon evidence from the TFS era, her being Antares IMHO still means her not being Miranda.

Also, don't forget the once-semi-canonical/official Jeri Taylor novel Pathways, where she makes Chakotay's raider Antares class...

Umm, I will, sorry.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[throwback]

Of the Antares-type freighters, the ship with the lowest known registry is the Woden (NCC-325). She appeared in the remastered "The Ultimate Computer" without a crew module.

 

[Albertese]

...

However, I'm sure the intention was not to make this kitbash into one of Okuda's conjectural classes from the Encyclopedia; it was most likely a simple rearranging of letters and numbers from two Reliant kits, and the name was coincidental.

...

This may be a small point, but if you're suggesting the Bozeman was pieced together from two AMT Reliant kits, this isn't the case. It was one of several models of Reliant built for TWOK and modified by Greg Jein based on drawings by himself and Mike Okuda. Also the AMT kit was never released prior to 1995 which means it didn't exist in time to be used for a 1992 episode of TNG.

And there are quite a few more differences between it and the regular Miranda-class ships than between the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B/Lakota. I have no qualms about it being a different class.

Also, the Encyclopedia was released in 1994 so there's no way anything made prior to that was ever intended to be one of Okuda's conjectural ships. The name of both the ship and it's class are clearly stated in the episode so there's nothing conjectural about it.

Also, it's possible I'm misunderstanding which ship you're referring to...

--Alex