Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 126

Thread: Enterprise Class

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    You probalby won't see a write up for an Enterprise-class in the post Dominin War era because we have the Enterprise-E out there. Typicallly, the class takes it's name from the first ship of that type launched.
    I'm obviously not getting my idea across here. Let's pretend that we're talking about a near-future era of Star Trek where Starfleet, after retiring the current USS Enterprise, decide to honour the vessels name by creating an Enterprise Class vessel, Does this finally make sense as to what I'm driving at?

  2. #17
    Do you know how and what episode the Enteprise is specifically called a heavy crusier? I'm not saying that it isn't-just that I don't think that it was locked down on screen.
    Enterprise Incident, on the display with the Klingon Battlecruiser.

    Yeah, I agree that the NX class would have to be part of UESPA Star Fleet, but that doesn't mean it was part of the Federation Starfleet.
    Neither was the gray-lady until season two. The NCC-1701 was explicitly part of UESPA for first season, with the Federation acting a United Nations body (complete with warring members) rather than a unified government. Something changed in the 2270s...

    Now why they are decomissioning the class is a good question. The most likely reason would be that the NX class were made obsolete somehow,
    The hull plating herself, maybe? But, honestly, it doesn't make much sense as the ship, even in that episode, is only about a decade old. The only way it would make sense was if they were decommissioning the ship from active duty to send it to the science labs to scruntinize over it...

    Since they were mentioning a newer, faster warp engine (Warp 7 I believe) it might mean that the NX class couldn't handle the new engines.
    Way the hell too early for that, by any measure. Thank you, Mister Berman. Second generation starship can actually outpace most of the DS9 fleet... yeah.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverback
    I'm obviously not getting my idea across here. Let's pretend that we're talking about a near-future era of Star Trek where Starfleet, after retiring the current USS Enterprise, decide to honour the vessels name by creating an Enterprise Class vessel, Does this finally make sense as to what I'm driving at?
    Actually, what I'm countering with is that the Federation would want to keep the Enterprise name alive for future generations, and therefore wouldn't likely assign it to a class name at all, because that would retire the name when that particular ship is decomissioned.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverback
    I'm obviously not getting my idea across here. Let's pretend that we're talking about a near-future era of Star Trek where Starfleet, after retiring the current USS Enterprise, decide to honour the vessels name by creating an Enterprise Class vessel, Does this finally make sense as to what I'm driving at?

    Okay, I get what you mean now. I don;t know anyone who has done that though. Most likely as no one is running a campaign set that far ahead.

    One rather fomidable obstacle with shooting ahead 20-50 years or so and designing an ENTERPRISE-class would be that the designer would need to design new components to reflect cutting-edge systems for the future. Then we'd have to work up an expansion for SPACEDOCK to let us do it.

    By 2420 Starfleet might have multiphasic Type XIV or XV phasers, tranporters with 3 light year range, regenerating ablative armor, and quantum slipstream warp drives. Sort of like us in 2006 trying to design a state of the art ship for 2050.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Actually, what I'm countering with is that the Federation would want to keep the Enterprise name alive for future generations, and therefore wouldn't likely assign it to a class name at all, because that would retire the name when that particular ship is decomissioned.
    Not really, the Enterprise has always been the exception to the rule. Now we've got that out of the way shall we start on a conjectural Enterprise Class vessel now?

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    One rather fomidable obstacle with shooting ahead 20-50 years or so and designing an ENTERPRISE-class would be that the designer would need to design new components to reflect cutting-edge systems for the future. Then we'd have to work up an expansion for SPACEDOCK to let us do it.

    By 2420 Starfleet might have multiphasic Type XIV or XV phasers, tranporters with 3 light year range, regenerating ablative armor, and quantum slipstream warp drives. Sort of like us in 2006 trying to design a state of the art ship for 2050.
    The advantage is that we've all seen some of the far future vessels that Starfleet employ so at least there's a way to set potential benchmarks.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverback
    The advantage is that we've all seen some of the far future vessels that Starfleet employ so at least there's a way to set potential benchmarks.
    First, you don't own the forum... please keep that in mind. If we veer off, it's not your job to steer us back. That's just rude. We were explaining why an 'Enterprise Class', with that name, was problematic.

    Second, you're saying 'What would an Enterprise class in the 25th century be like'? The short answer is, "I dunno". What type of ship is she? What she's supposed to be doing? How big is she? Did Star Fleet go back to smaller ships after the fiasco that was the Galaxy class? Did they get even bigger instead? Did phasers progress, or were they made completely obsolete?

    Whole poop load of unanswered questions here.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    First, you don't own the forum... please keep that in mind. If we veer off, it's not your job to steer us back. That's just rude.
    Surely that's the job of a moderator to indicate whether I've overstepped the bounds of the forum, not another user.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    We were explaining why an 'Enterprise Class', with that name, was problematic.
    What problem? It's science fiction, make believe. We make it whatever we want it to be don't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by TFVanguard
    Second, you're saying 'What would an Enterprise class in the 25th century be like'? The short answer is, "I dunno". What type of ship is she? What she's supposed to be doing? How big is she? Did Star Fleet go back to smaller ships after the fiasco that was the Galaxy class? Did they get even bigger instead? Did phasers progress, or were they made completely obsolete?

    Whole poop load of unanswered questions here.
    That's correct there are a lot of questions that could be asked about such a vessel. Does that mean that they shouldn't be asked or theorised upon?

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverback
    Surely that's the job of a moderator to indicate whether I've overstepped the bounds of the forum, not another user.
    You're right. Please keep that in mind in the future, for your own actions, okay?

    What problem? It's science fiction, make believe. We make it whatever we want it to be don't we?
    "Suspension of Disbelief" , once a fiction writer sets up his universe, he must either adhere to the rules or have a damn good reason for violating them. The Trek universe is, more or less, based on US Naval traditions. Expectations follow from there.

    That's correct there are a lot of questions that could be asked about such a vessel. Does that mean that they shouldn't be asked or theorised upon?
    Yes, but you were demanding designs based on nothing but the conjectural class name itself. There's nothing to go on to start really fufilling your request.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    TFVanguard,
    The guy did start this thread, so I think that gives him some say as to if we are adressing his topic. Besides, I think he was more concerned with trying to act as a peacemaker betuween the two of us. (You see there was a different thread that got sort of heated...). I don't think he was trying to muzzle or control us or anything.

    Silverback didn't demand anything, he just asked if anyone had done something. No problem. Trek has domne some "look ahead" ships. Why not us gamers? I know I once wrote a FASA Trek adventure where the PCs messed up on a slingshot maneuver and wound up in the 25th century. For that adventure I wrote up the Enterprise-G under the command of Captain Data.


    As for Trek Universe bein based upon US Naval traditions-that's debatable. Roddenberry used to claim that it was based more on the US Coast Guard. From what we've seen on screen Starf Fleet is also influenced by the tadtions of the US Army and many US police forces. Probably since GR had served in the army and had been a policeman, and it influenced his outlook.

    As for the naming convertions of ships in Star Fleet, it doesn't seem to match up precisely with any modern navy. You won't find a Hood in a US Navy, let alone a Eagle, Bismark or Yamato.

    In reality very little of Trek is actually a known. Pretty much all the topics we go over are speculation.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    TFVanguard,
    The guy did start this thread, so I think that gives him some say as to if we are adressing his topic.
    Maybe, but he came off even worse than I usually do.

    Why not us gamers? I know I once wrote a FASA Trek adventure where the PCs messed up on a slingshot maneuver and wound up in the 25th century.
    Points if you remembered cadets Plucky and Hampton.

    But, seriously, that's not the problem. If he's just looking for a future Enterprise, it could be anything. But, post dominion war, we've got the Soverign class for some time. Considering that there's an Enterprise-J, we don't go too long without an Enterprise in the fleet - not long enough for the Registry to consider the naming practice 'out of date', anyway.

    As for Trek Universe bein based upon US Naval traditions-that's debatable. Roddenberry used to claim that it was based more on the US Coast Guard.
    Loosely based. Remember that most of the staffers on the original Star Trek were WWII vets serving in both theatres and in all armed forces, along with some classic artisans who appreciated Horatio Hornblower, Verne, etc... so you get a lot of themes. And, of course, the action of the pulps.

    So, you wouldn't look for an exact match, but more of a general idea. TOS was much more 'strict' about its traditions, certainly. The TNG-VOY crew was much more loose, and didn't have a... respect.. for such traditions, so things break down a bit.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    I think Silverback was just worried becuase of how things went in the "ICON Alternate Die Resolution Thread" and just wanted to avoid a similar situation here. This is somethin glike the second thread he (I guess) has posted in.

    Unlike other sites, we can get into all sorts of heated discussions over stuff like what color was the TOS connie (White Grey, Blue) without it becoming a Flame War.


    Yeah, Trek orgins are from all over. THe early rank structure was supposeldy lifted from the army rather than the navy. Starfleet is also was at best paramilitary. Where else would you see a ship where practically everyone refers to the second in commmand as "Mister". In 82 epsidoes and 6 feature films, I doubt Spock is referred to by rank a half dozen times--and most of those are when Kirk is introducing him.

    BTW, it seems that a lot the reason for the reatively low level of dicipline in Starfleet was that everyone on the TOS Enterprise was supposedly an officer and that there were no enlisted. Before you scoff at the idea and say that it would be impossible consider that that is exacly how a modern US police department works. Everyone is a "Police Officer". If you watch the TOS epsiodes you do see "crewmen" with ensign braids on thier sleeves. Then again you also see people in the wrong color uniform or with the wrong rank insignia.

  13. #28
    Roddeberry had, at one time, said that 'there are only officers in Star Fleet', but we do know better. We get Midshipment, Crewman, Yeoman, Chiefs, etc, throughout all the series. You would need them, you wouldn't need an officer to be the shuttlecraft maintenance guy - but he wouldn't be exactly featured much on the show, either.

    E-1 Crewman Recruit / Trainee - Many in TWOK
    E-2 Crewman Apprentice - No evidence on screen for this
    E-3 Crewman - explicit in TUC and often in TOS. Some mentions in other series.
    E-4,E-6 Petty Officer - mentioned in DS9 as O'Brien's former rank.
    E-7 Chief Petty Officer - O'Brien's rank, given in TNG
    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer - O'Brien's rank, given in DS9
    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer - No evidence on screen for this
    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer of Star Fleet - no evidence on screen for this

    E-1,E-3 Yeoman - All over in TOS, some shown in the movies, none from TNG onward

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    We have a semi offcial rank structure now. But a lot of things were still in flux during TOS. We did't even have a Federation until part way through the first season!

    And... we still don't have a cannon reason for Colonel West. Lot's of theories, but nothing proven.

    I had once considering bring in a engineer for a campaign who had returned from Voyager. He was going to be a "shuttlecraft maintenace guy". When asked about what he did on Voyager. "Week one: Built a replament for Type 8 Shuttlecraft. Week Two- Built a replament for Type 8 Shuttlecraft. Weeks 3 to Weeks 104:Same as week 2. Week 105: Built replacement for Type 9 shuttlecraft...."

    So who are Plucky and Hampton?

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    We have a semi offcial rank structure now. But a lot of things were still in flux during TOS. We did't even have a Federation until part way through the first season!
    The Federation existed since the initial pitch, but the nature of it changed. It went from being the United Nations to the 'Ideal United Nations Government' somewhere along the line. Could you imagine 'Journey to Babel' even in the Movie era, much less TNG?

    And... we still don't have a cannon reason for Colonel West. Lot's of theories, but nothing proven.
    Ironically, he was supposed to be a well-known leader of the Star Fleet Marines... which meant he should have had naval ranks. The only real explanation is that there are ground and defense forces used in the Federation, similar to the US Army and Air Force - hence Col West.

    So who are Plucky and Hampton?
    Bah! They were cadets who trained under Captain Duck Dodgers!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •