posted
It's also worth noting that the "Aires" probably should be "Aries", since whatever nitwit who did that screen probably also did the one which appeared briefly when Geordi reported the tertiary EM spike thingy, and informed Picard that it was thalaron.
That screen, which is fortunately covered over within a couple of frames, features a reference to a "subspace fluxuation" and a "hyrdrogen pocket".
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Special dispensation. I see no reason not to assume that the original USS Nova was at some time destroyed, and Starfleet commissioned another one of the same class in her place. They did it with the Defiant, but that's an NCC conundrum best left for another thread.
What I find odd is that all of the ships are apparently of different classes, unless the USS Archer is an Excelsior...
posted
Anyone want to speculate on the origins of this "STAR FLEET BATTLE GROUP OMEGA"?
First of all, I can only remember the "STAR FLEET MEDICAL FACILITY" label on that statue in front of the "STARFLEET MEDICAL CENTER" building from a Voyager episode. Are there other examples of this spelling?
I find it a bit strange that Starfleet operates "Battle Groups". Doesn't sound like a politically correct 24th century Federation term to me. And considering the "Omega" part, there could be at least 23 other "Battle Groups"...
Perhaps, and I like this better, SFBGO was an Earth naval group posted along the Romulan border, and Starfleet still has ships in this old "Battle Group" patroling the Zone.
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Special dispensation. I see no reason not to assume that the original USS Nova was at some time destroyed, and Starfleet commissioned another one of the same class in her place. They did it with the Defiant, but that's an NCC conundrum best left for another thread.
What I find odd is that all of the ships are apparently of different classes, unless the USS Archer is an Excelsior...
Mark
I wasn't saying it was a mistake. It seems highly likely that the original Nova was destroyed in the Dominion War.
I do think it would be odd to have a Nova Class in a Battle Group, though.
As regards the name of the Battle Group, I am inclined to belive that SFBGO is the Enterprise's personal fleet (due to the "our fleet" reference).
I suspect that a "Battle Group" is a "fleet" that isn't actually attached to a specific numbered "fleet" (Sixth Fleet or whatever) but operates autonomously under the command of a large capital ship like a Sovereign.
24 sounds like a reasonable number for these autonomous fleets, considering the likely number of powerful Sovereign/Galaxy type ships.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
What I find really interesting about that list is that Riker served as XO on one of those ships, and was offered command of another of those ships!
posted
I'd say the archer is an Excelsior: the registry fits...and I like the idea far better than the obvious alternative: a Constilation that's still in service.
What other ships have we seen with registries in the "44xxx" range? A very early Chyenne or New Orleans mabye? I could dig a New Orleans class Archer. Could be an Ambassador too I guess...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'd say the archer is an Excelsior: the registry fits...and I like the idea far better than the obvious alternative: a Constilation that's still in service.
What other ships have we seen with registries in the "44xxx" range? A very early Chyenne or New Orleans mabye? I could dig a New Orleans class Archer. Could be an Ambassador too I guess...
It could be a Centaur-type.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
As far as the spelling of "Star Fleet" is concerned, it's already been pointed out that whoever made the displays couldn't type correctly to save his life (at least on the day the displays were created).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: What I find really interesting about that list is that Riker served as XO on one of those ships, and was offered command of another of those ships!
Riker has been offered command of so many ships it would be a surprise if there was not one of them present in a fleet...
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
What's the origin of the "Omega"? If the fleet was just assembled to stop the Scimitar, with every ship available in that area of the neutral zone, shouldn't it be "Battle Group Alpha" instead? I can't believe Starfleet assembled more than 20 fleets (going by the names "Alpha", "Beta" and so on). On the other hand it was probably Starfleet's (or Star Fleet's?) way of making things more dramatic.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
They could just as easily be honoring his father you know.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
If we assume that Archer is as important as a historic figure as the NX-01 is in the 24th century, the ship is an Oberth or a Runabout.
They could just as easily be honoring his father you know.
Or his great grandson, the famous diplomat and first Federation Ambassador to Romulus.
On the other hand there must be other families with the name Archer who have nothing to do with the man who designed the warp 5 engine, genetically or otherwise.
It might not be named after a person at all, after all Archer is or rather was a job description, just like Bozeman ;-)
posted
Nope, the Hood wasn't destroyed. Maybe you mean the Cairo or Valley Forge?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
