The USS Nash

[t_smitts]

This is more of a "behind the scenes" thread, but I'll put it in the DS9 category, cause I can't really think of anywhere else to put it.

You've probably seen several episodes start with a stock footage the Jenolan model docking at DS9. Now they renamed it the USS Nash for the series, but there's a couple of weird things. First and foremost, they flipped the model upside. Not by accident, I think, since they replaced the labels and reoriented them as well. They also gave it a weird registry of NCC-2010-5. That's not a case of just sticking a "5" after the Jenolan's registry, they actually created a whole new decal to fit the numbering on there.

Why do you suppose they did that?

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

What an odd thing to do. Honestly, as I am a bit cynical and would want to do this myself, I can imagine the art production staff saying, 'This is gonna drive someone nuts someday...' as they're placing the new decal on, laughing maniacally.

 

[Timo]

Odds are pretty high that "dash five" is somehow relevant to Erik Nash, the motion control artist the ship was named after. Retaining the old 2010 number would just be part of the joke of using the dash five.

Why they inverted the ship, no telling. It doesn't suddenly become unrecognizable or a plausible all-new type or anything. And it's not the beginning of a new practice of choosing up and down in space more liberally, either (although some of the alien craft docked at DS9 are also upside down vs. their previous appearances in empty space). Perhaps it's a matter of wanting to use a (stock?) shot of the station from down below while the ship model lacks a top attachment point for the motion control rig (none is evident on the model or implied by the TNG shots)?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Maybe it's a Brisbane- as opposed to a Sydney-Class transport.

 

[Timo]

...Considering the up-is-down approach, surely Anchorage class or somesuch?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Leathco]

If I were to make a guess, the dash 5 could be a sign that there have been 6 different ships designated USS Nash, and they are using a number designation instead of letter. Starfleet could have made the change from letters to numbers after the launch of the 1701-A, and kept letters for ships that already have letters at the end of their designations, but use numbers for ships with the same name after the change.

 

[Timo]

Or then it's an "-S" rather than "-5" and the name has been really popular of late!

I mean, it would have to be "of late", as the number 2010 would be fairly recent: even DSC has done nothing to detract from the idea that registries are roughly chronological, and the TOS movie era is the one with four-digit registries beginning with a 2.

Might be that in-universe, the ship used to be NCC-F2010 but Starfleet decided to get rid of those TAS style letters denoting the role of the vessel. And NCC-F2010 could have become NCC-2010 - if not for the unfortunate existence of an Excelsior class vessel (or whatever) by that registry already. So the bureaucrats grasped for a solution, and came up with exactly nothing, groaned in desperation, and declared "take five, folks". And the pennant painters took that literally.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Finn]

This thread is worthless without pictures...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Someone unfamiliar with Trek was probably told to change the decals to make it look like a new ship and that's the result.

Remember those incorrectly-assembled AMT Enterprise kits in TNG?

 

[Timo]

It's a bit unlikely that anybody would be told to change the decals, other than the usual modeling slaves themselves. And the people playing with the decals wouldn't be the people responsible for flipping the ship: either two sets of people would have to receive the same specific instructions here, or then the people shooting the ship would be told to flip, and the decals would be altered accordingly by somebody at their beck and call.

On the other hand, the decals are on very large font, making "USS Nash" actually visible on the stern of the ship (where a name written in a font more appropriate for names longer than four letters would not be readable). If the ship were decorated that way when sent to the motion control people, they'd have little choice but to flip her. Or then to quickly tape over that particular pennant so that it wouldn't adversely affect their long-planned-out shoot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Is it possible that it was intended to be NCC-20105 (without the dash between the 0 and the 5)?

A number of 2270s-90s designs appear to have had new (improved Block II/Block III) hulls built around the early 2320s (possibly to replace losses post-Tomed?) and the Nash-type could have been intended as replacement for the earlier Sydney-class to operate alongside the replacement Excelsior, Miranda, Centaur and Oberth-class vessels and other new designs.

 

[Timo]

A valid rationalization but probably not an "intent" - it's not as if the dash could happen by accident. What decal sheet would have "- 5" there waiting to be applied?

Of course, it's impossible in practice to see the registry at all, in any of the episodes. Even backstage photos of the model leave the digit or letter rather ambiguous. Could be a 5, could be a B, could be a smilie.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tim Thomason]

The Nash is an old, small transport ship, meant to be like an early runabout. The registry ties in with shuttlecraft registries from the original Star Trek, and I think that's intentional. One of the designers thought that the Nash should (at one point) be assigned to an Excelsior, or whatever, class ship, and by inference, retconned the Jenolan to that same ship.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

The Nash looks a little too large to be an auxiliary craft, seeing as how it filled a berth at the docking ring and would never squeeze onto a runabout pad.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

The Nash is an old, small transport ship, meant to be like an early runabout. The registry ties in with shuttlecraft registries from the original Star Trek, and I think that's intentional. One of the designers thought that the Nash should (at one point) be assigned to an Excelsior, or whatever, class ship, and by inference, retconned the Jenolan to that same ship.

The Nash looks a little too large to be an auxiliary craft, seeing as how it filled a berth at the docking ring and would never squeeze onto a runabout pad.

Scaled to the Connie nacelles used on the model (and considering the several decks of windows and the proper bridge/operations room), the Sydney-class is estimated at around 238m in length, with a beam of 80m (roughly half the length and beam of the Excelsior-class and larger than the Defiant). So while I agree it's probably a Fleet Auxiliary Vessel in the sense of being part of the Merchant or Logistics Services ("Antares Hoof Insignia") rather than Exploratory Division ("Enterprise Chevron"), I doubt it's an auxiliary craft ala the Runabout.

On the other hand, a warp-powered version of the original "Executive Shuttle" - (length 16m, beam 6-8m (est.)), which is about 2/3 the size of the Runabount and around twice the size of the Class F shuttle), which provided the base for the Sydney model - does seem like a decent candidate for the Excelsior's "captain's yacht" or "proto-Runabout".

 

[kkt]

Maybe whether it's an auxiliary craft is as much an administrative decision as a size decision? No permanent crew, another starship is responsible for her maintenance = auxiliary number.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

As much as I think that "no permenant crew" is a decent criteria for "auxiliary craft" designation, the main example of this on-screen - the Defiant - still warrants a proper starship number* (though to counter that, the Runabouts, which are auxiliary craft, do as well, so this isn't definative). But I think, for size reasons, if the Nash is an auxiliary craft then, like the Defiant (to a degree) and the Runabouts, it's an auxiliary to a starbase not another starship.

* Though as an aside, IMO the Defiant at least should have had a Duty Officer (Ensign or Lieutenant), an Engineer, a Medic and a skeleton crew of engineers and armory techs of its own "on call" at all times.

 

[Timo]

On the vein of "what do we have to believe in?", the scenes with the Nash docking tell us

1) that her name is USS NASH
2) that she's half as long as the Defiant, and half as wide (counting nacelles)
3) that yes, she looks like an upside down Sydney from the bottom (former top), stern and side, and is intended to be oriented that way, considering the name pennant across the stern

What the scenes specifically omit include

1) any particular registry
2) illumination of the rows of windows that established scale for the Jenolan
3) illumination of any of the "engine" bits (the row of squares at stern, the warp nacelle side grilles)
4) illumination of the ventral bulge that used to be a bridge (that is, the forward bit that may be a Kelvinverse type windshield for all we know)
5) illumination of the figurative sort as to what the top (former bottom) and bow might look like

In "light" of this, the ship could very well be distinct from the Jenolan, perhaps mounting those half-size engines several FASA designs are infamous for, having no ventral bridge but merely a sensor or deflector dome, and carrying the registry NAR-12345 for all we care. Still a multi-decker, but possibly with as few as three decks. Today, commercial vessels do tend to look like scale models of each other...

There is that other scene (from "Visitor" at least) where the model briefly flies past the station with illuminated window rows (but still without "DS9 era" blue glow to the nacelles). But this one establishes no scale and allows no glimpsing of pennant paint, so it could easily be a "proper" Sydney doing barrel rolls for the amusement of the passengers.

Timo Saloniemi