Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » Starships & Technology » What If? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: What If?
SwSmith
Junior Member
Member # 1319

 - posted      Profile for SwSmith     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if the Enterprise A,B,C,D,& E had a standard registry number. What do you think it would be for each ship? and Enterprise-A being a new ship and not a refit.
Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689

 - posted      Profile for Daniel Butler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who knows? Pick a random 5-digit number. Maybe 4-digit for A and B.
Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peregrinus
Curmudgeon-at-Large
Member # 504

 - posted      Profile for Peregrinus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NCC-2339 (if it were a new-build, which it wasn't), NCC-2500, NCC-26118, NCC-71820, and NCC-74541.

Because I say so.

--Jonah

--------------------
"That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."

--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused

Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NCC-2500? Nuh-uh. There's no way Starfleet production was that slow, even all the way back then, even despite the relatively short life-span of the -A before she was replaced.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689

 - posted      Profile for Daniel Butler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Assuming registry numbers were even sequential.
Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reverend
Based on a true story...
Member # 335

 - posted      Profile for Reverend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And assuming starship production was in full swing.

--------------------
Dark Knight Adventures & Batman Beyond:Stripped - DeviantArt Gallery
================================
...what we demand is a total absence of solid facts!

Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Peregrinus
Curmudgeon-at-Large
Member # 504

 - posted      Profile for Peregrinus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, this is in accordance with my Jeffries-extrapolated registry scheme, which I know isn't universally loved. *lol* The 23rd Cuiser block was assigned to the Enterprise class newbuilds (the ones that weren't Constitution refits). This around the early 2280s, when Starfleet was recognizing that their production capacity was increasing, and the old hundred-vessel preassigned blocks were going to soon be insufficient, so the decision was made to stop the block system and assign hull numbers sequentially as vessels were ordered, regardless of class, beginning with number 2500.

But notice he said if the -A were a newbuild. Starfleet extended the service life of the old Yorktown to give to Kirk. For the purpose of this hypothetical, I gave it my number for the Levant, one of the ships in fandom that became the -A. NCC-1701 was already scheduled for decommissioning at the time. And Starfleet decided to lead off the new registry system with an uprate to the Excelsior design, hence NCC-2500, and give it the Enterprise name. While it was being developed, Starfleet let the Enterprise-A fly around under Kirk for a few years before retiring her and giving the name to the -B.

I gave the -C that number as a lead-off to that block of canon 26xxx registries.

The Galaxy is NCC-70637. The next half-dozen I gave to the ones that were stored incomplete. Then the Yamato and Odyssey either side of the Enterprise-D. Then the Venture and Trinculo to round out the initial order.

And the number I gave the -E is the higher of the two numbers I've seen for the Sovereign, so I figured why not. [Smile]

That's a bit more detail than I was expectiong to go into on this, but I was feeling eloquent. [Big Grin]

--Jonah

[EDITed to fix a couple typos and clarify some awkward phrasing.]

--------------------
"That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."

--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused

Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peregrinus
Curmudgeon-at-Large
Member # 504

 - posted      Profile for Peregrinus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Double postage. The intertubes seem clogged this evening...

--Jonah

--------------------
"That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."

--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused

Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Axeman 3D
Active Member
Member # 1050

 - posted      Profile for Axeman 3D     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and that other ships didn't keep their registries active the way the Enterprise did.

--------------------
www.kennyscrap.com - where I download crap I make.

Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've wondered if that's 'actually' the case . . . would solve the dual-registry Yamato issue.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reverend
Based on a true story...
Member # 335

 - posted      Profile for Reverend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's best to assume it is the case. For starters we've seen multiple 'incarnations' of the same name in different ships and classes (Hood, Defiant, Grissom, Lexington, Bellerophon, Farragut) to name a few off the top of my head, none of which continued the registry number of a predecessor plus an alphabetical suffix.
Assuming that they do, just to account for the odd lapse in continuity is a bit silly if you ask me.
It's safe to say the Enterprise is a special case as it is the Flagship of the Federation, not just the flagship of a certain fleet or a task force, the whole fleet.

As for how numbers are assigned, speaking s someone who has work with stores and stock allocation, to me the most likely way it is that certain ranges are pre-assigned for planned production runs, possibly even some ranges are reserved for specific ship yards, so it'd be up to the yards themselves to assign available registries.

So, for the sake of argument, say Starfleet command gives out the construction orders the next 2 years as follow:-


Utopia Planita is assigned ranges NCC-77200 -> NCC-77358 and NCC-77780 -> NCC-77999
San Francisco is assigned ranges NCC-77359 -> NCC-77779

In which time UP is ordered to build 24 Galaxys, 50 Akiras, 70 Novas and say 150 Danubes
So the yard commander assigns the registries available to him as he sees fit.
Say NCC-77780 -> NCC 77804 for the Galaxy class ships; NCC-77805-77855 for the Akiras, NCC-77856 -> NCC-77926 for the Novas and NCC-77208 -> NCC-77358 for the Danubes.

Now he still has NCC-77927 -> NCC-77999 which can be tacked in front of the next batch of Novas that gets ordered and NCC-77200 -> NCC-77207 which he intentionally left to one side because he knows the NXP-2765WP/T pathfinder is being fast tracked and will likely go into production as an official prototype for the new Yorktown-Class, which will probably require an additional order of six hulls after the prototype, for which he "pencils in" NX-77200. That still leaves NCC-77207 without a ship to go with, so he either leaves it unallocated, possibly to be used years later as a "filler" when he find's he doesn't have a "block" of numbers big enough to neatly take a whole order, or he ends up assigning it the experimental Icarus Project as NX-77207 along with several other "scrap" numbers he has on file to cater for the five or so prototypes they have been cleared to order.

That's how I see it anyway.

--------------------
Dark Knight Adventures & Batman Beyond:Stripped - DeviantArt Gallery
================================
...what we demand is a total absence of solid facts!

Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Mars Needs Women
Sexy Funmobile
Member # 1505

 - posted      Profile for Mars Needs Women     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yamato aside, I never had a problem with ships having a registry scheme similar to the Enterprise. Unfortunately this would not be the case for reused ship names like Constellation and Defiant. Which then begs the question how that alien guy from Hope and Fear managed to pull of that weird USS Dauntless NX-01-A registry with the Voyager crew none the wiser, but that's another can of worms.
Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reverend
Based on a true story...
Member # 335

 - posted      Profile for Reverend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of all the "new" toys on display on the Dauntless, an unusual registry number is the least attention grabbing, at least for the new of Voyager. At most it'd get a raised eyebrow from Tuvok.

--------------------
Dark Knight Adventures & Batman Beyond:Stripped - DeviantArt Gallery
================================
...what we demand is a total absence of solid facts!

Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
SUPPOSED TO HAVE ICE POWERS!!
Member # 646

 - posted      Profile for The Mighty Monkey of Mim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Either Jefferies or Probert originally wanted to have the new Enterprise in TMP be NCC-1800. Roddenberry nixed it because he wanted the ship to be more familiar to the audience.
Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dukhat
Hater of Stock Footage
Member # 341

 - posted      Profile for Dukhat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So did they envision the TMP Enterprise as a new ship, and not a refit of the TV version?
Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3