-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There could be a good reason for a lot of the ships we’ve seen having 325xxx or even 3250xx registries - perhaps they were newly-built or about to be commissioned ships which weren’t powered up or even fuelled, and so escaped being destroyed in the Burn.
posted
So this is what we have so far. Did I forget something?
USS Annan* NCC-325051* Saturn class* USS Armstrong NCC-317659 Constitution class USS Cuyahoga USS Giacconi NCC-316608 USS Hiraga Gennai USS Jubayr* NCC-325068* Courage class* USS Le Guin NCC-325060* Mars class* USS Maathai* NCC-325023* Angelou class* USS Noble NCC-325002 Constitution class USS Nog NCC-325070 Eisenberg class* USS Reliant NCC-1864-M Constitution class USS Song NCC-325084 Courage class* USS Tikhov NCC-1067-M USS Voyager NCC-74656-J Intrepid class USS Yelchin NCC-4774-E NCC-325019 NCC-325072
*Behind the scenes sources
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
There are still three classes unnamed: the flattened-capital-J-shaped ship (with four or eight nacelles if Jorg’s analysts is right) which has the 325019 reg; the four-nacelled ship; and the dual-long-nacelled one.
posted
I think the Hansando is the four-nacelled ship (the one that looks similar to the Section 31 four nacelled ship.)
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
There has to come a point where there is a reset of the numbers. It has happened before in real world and realistically should happen in the fantasy/sci-fi realm too.
For example the "Century Series" aircraft were all labled F-101, F-104 etc. then it was reset where numbers designations became F-14, F-15, F-16 etc. I realize this is a different format as it should be compared with Carrier hull numbers i.e. CVN-65, CVN-80 etc. but the number of hulls created in real life vs. the sci-fi realm is staggeringly different. There should either be a type classification such as "BB" for Battleship "CVN" for carrier etc. or a more organized numbering system.
IIRC, in TOS, there were only a DOZEN Constitution class starships. Now it seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of ships of the same class all needing absurdly long hull numbers. While this looks really cool on screen, the reality is that this actually dilutes the value of ANY individual ship. It's just another brick in the wall.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: There has to come a point where there is a reset of the numbers. It has happened before in real world and realistically should happen in the fantasy/sci-fi realm too.
For example the "Century Series" aircraft were all labled F-101, F-104 etc. then it was reset where numbers designations became F-14, F-15, F-16 etc. I realize this is a different format as it should be compared with Carrier hull numbers i.e. CVN-65, CVN-80 etc. but the number of hulls created in real life vs. the sci-fi realm is staggeringly different. There should either be a type classification such as "BB" for Battleship "CVN" for carrier etc. or a more organized numbering system.
IIRC, in TOS, there were only a DOZEN Constitution class starships. Now it seems like there are hundreds if not thousands of ships of the same class all needing absurdly long hull numbers. While this looks really cool on screen, the reality is that this actually dilutes the value of ANY individual ship. It's just another brick in the wall.
Where's Jonah to once again tell us about what Matt Jeffries REALLY planned with hull numbers?
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Jokes aside, though, the amount of ships in 32Fleet generally depends on 1) what missions they're handling & where, & 2) what tech level they're at.
For late 24th/early 25th century, I postulated in my work a Starfleet of ~65,000 ships because the mission needs & the level of drive tech required that. But if by 3189 they can hit the Ocampan homeworld in the span of 2 years, then that dramaticlly reduces the needed number of ships; at those speeds, a fleet of, say, 600 could cover the entire galaxy. If the assurances of "not another Burn" are accepted, that means shipbuilding can renew, exploration can return, & the existing fleet doesn't need to stay so close to home all the time. Once that level of operation goes extragalactic, then there would probably be a needed return to tens of thousands of ships.
Also, who's going to crew them? If the Federation is that drastically reduced, then manpower issues require a reduced fleet, unless there are mostly or fully holo-crewed ships out there.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with Wizartist. In my opinion, by 2499 PIC should have had starship registries with a different prefix, say NCV instead of NCC (which VOY even had precedence for with the Relativity’s registry), and start the numbering over. So those Inquiry class ships could have been NCV-01 to NCV-200 or whatever. And definitely by the 31st century, Starfleet should have switched over to a different numbering system, yet 700 years after the TNG era they’re still using NCC numbers.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Is this going to be another one of those not-really-canon-but-might-as-well-be-as-it’ll-never-be-contradicted-by-proper-canon facts?
And, ugh. WTF is it with all the VOY veneration? Why does Janeway get a class named after her? Is what the ship did really all that special? Some obviously think so (you should have seen the outrage when I asked this on Twitter. “But she destroyed the Borg,” they sobbed furiously.* Really looking forward to rubbing it in their faces when the Borg are inevitably brought back in DSC - which they’re bound to do).
*There being Borg obviously live & assimilatin’ in the LDS titles seems to escape their notice
posted
Cross-marketing for the new Prodigy show.
Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lee: And, ugh. WTF is it with all the VOY veneration? Why does Janeway get a class named after her? Is what the ship did really all that special?
Kristen Beyer is part of the writing staff.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
So... the Courage-class is coming to STO next week.
Why do I bring this up? Because the ship's "gimmick" is that the player decides which end of the ship is "front" and which end is "back", with different abilities in each mode.
The cynic in me is wondering if anybody thought out which end is which when designing it.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
