Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tilt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!tilt!smw
From: smw@tilt.UUCP (Stewart Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: ships
Message-ID: <127@tilt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-May-84 21:31:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: tilt.127
Posted: Wed May 23 21:31:47 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 13:14:29 EDT
References: <1877@pur-ee.UUCP> <2790@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. EECS
Lines: 23

> From: alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum)
> 
> From the technical manual:  Scout/Destroyer Class, Transport Tug, Heavy
> Cruiser, Dreadnaught.
> 
> Note that the Destroyer and the Scout have the same basic design (external
> appearance) except that the Destroyer has more weaponry.  The dreadnaught is
> listed as ''under construction''

Pfui.  The "Starfleet Technical Manual" contains lots of, let's say, creative
material.  Like the exhaustive list of hundreds of starship names, the bogosso
Romulan and Klingon peace treaties, the official Federation printing font (how
much sillier can you get), the flags and shields of various systems in the 
Federation always referring to the Terran star names (okay if we assume they
were *all* colonies, not aliens)...   If you like it, fine, but I never take 
it as an reference authority for any ST questions.

I always found the dreadnought drawing, as a "next generation" ship, terribly
ugly.  A starship with a third warp pod is like a swan with a third wing.  The
Excelsior had better not look anything like it.
--
just one of the wolves this computer's been thrown to...
	Stewart Wiener / Princeton Univ. EECS / princeton!tilt!smw