Doesn't it start with a T?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Umm...I assume you're referring to its class designation, in which case it is an Intrepid-class vessel. (Named so for the first ship of that design, the U.S.S. Intrepid NCC-74600.)
-MMoM
[ April 18, 2002, 11:35: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Umm...I assume you're referring to its class designation, in which case it is an Intrepid-class vessel. We can therefore assume that the first ship of that design was named the U.S.S. Intrepid.
-T_T Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
WTF?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
TF indeed.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Monkey: I suspect Tom was attempting to supplant your non-canon information w/ canon.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Maybe he meant what ship designation it was, ie, Cruiser, Destroyer, Scout etc...?
I think the Intrepids are listed as 'Light Explorers', although I never really liked that term much. That ground's pretty much covered by the Cruisers.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Ship classification debates have often degenerated into gallstone-passing contests in the past.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Monkey: I suspect Tom was attempting to supplant your non-canon information w/ canon.
Sternbach confirmed the NCC-74600, if that's what you mean...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
*steps onto Voyager board* Whoa...haven't been here in a while... Maybe The Apocalypse can clarify.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Last I heard, Sternbach had no idea where the 74600 number came from. I suppose this could have changed since then, though it would be an odd sort of reversal.
Posted by The Apocalypse (Member # 633) on :
Sorry, I meant class designation.
Thanks
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
What designation is there on T?
Torpedo boat? Terminator? (not bloody likely)
I always liked the designation monitor, it sounds cool and latin. The earth-form of it was of course abanodoned long time ago, but in the Dune-books there are many monitors, heavy "Sardaukar" ones, and light courier ones like from the Bene Gesserit. They were once described as very lean and lithe, with weapons hidden behind panels.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Last I heard, Sternbach had no idea where the 74600 number came from. I suppose this could have changed since then, though it would be an odd sort of reversal.
That reversal has indeed occurred. Sternbach just recently reaffirmed the number in a post on the TrekBBS (started by yours truly ) where he is a regular poster in the TrekTEch forum.
Also, in the same thread, Alex Rosenzweig (who happens to be a BBS member and moderator) revealed that he at one point communicated with Okuda, who more or less "okayed" a number of NCC-75000 for the U.S.S. Sovereign. (Though this is not quite as firm.)
-MMoM Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, then if 74600 is the rego of the class ship, then those DS9 Intrepid variant kitbashes are therefore not made from other vessels. The Elkins' rego is 71XXX, and the Yeager's is 6XXXX (chronologically speaking, of course). Yet more proof that official written publications can be dismissed as non-canon just as easily as Franz Joseph's tech manual was by GR.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Buh? I know the point you're trying to make - that if Okuda's written stuff can be as easily contradicted as Joseph's while still remaing on-the-whole canon, then Joseph's stuff can also be considered canon unless contradicted. Sorry, nice try, thanks for playing, next contestant please. I don't buy it.
But what has the registry of the Sabre-class Yeager got to do with anything?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
He meant the Intrepid-variant Yeager, NCC-65674. No need to bring FJ into this, though.. Sternbach said that he never specified an Intrepid registry, and that the supposed post where he did was just a rumor. I dont see why people think that the registry someone made up that hasnt even been published in a real book, let alone a canonical technical publication or even a paramount licensed book would be canon.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
There are actually four designations beginning with T. Tactical Cruiser, Transport, Tanker and Tug, not that the Intrepid was any of these...
[ March 25, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: The Red Admiral ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
This is the Yeager, then, that's just turned up in one of the DS9 kitbash ship photos?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
correct.. even though its registry is anomalous (a Constellation homage.. its 74656 rearranged), thankfully it at least doesnt predate the FC Yeager 61xxx reg.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'd venture that Sternbach speculation from since he's finished working at Paramount and speculation stemming from the period when he was the writers' go-to guy for Treknology consulting are two different things. The latter enjoys a "if we woulda seen it it probably woulda been this way" semicanonicity status, the former does not.
[ March 25, 2002, 21:30: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Sternbach said that he never specified an Intrepid registry, and that the supposed post where he did was just a rumor.
Well, he told me and the entire TrekBBS different...
The_Tom, you make a very good point. But, as we all know, this NCC-74600 thing goes back to the time when he was w/TPTB. It's just only now being confirmed, instead of being on-and-off-dismissed-as-a-rumor-thing, as it has been in the past.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess you wouldn't be interested in posting a link to this alledged confirmation, though? I, for one, have no wish to wade through TrekBBS to try to find it...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I'm a little disgusted at the very thought of mingling with that rabble.
I read off a website that somebody had saying Sternbach never said that. Possibly they were misquoting or misrepresenting him. I was misled.
But, at the core of the point, it is so far in the realm of a non-issue that its not even funny. I have the ability to leave past starships behind as 'registry not known' and leave it at that, since we have to beat this dead horse over and over, as if its going to make all the technology in Star Trek gracefully more realistic, dependent on our discovering just how many sixes, fives and zeroes are contained within the registry number of the U.S.S. Intrepid Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW, on the topic of the thread, the 'T' designation you heard was probably this:
quote:excerpted from http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/intrepid.html Rick Sternbach was asked what the designation for the Intrepid class is, his reply was as follows - "I think Voy qualifies as an Explorer, though probably the smallest of its kind. The "slang" label that I always used in-house was Troubleshooter, but that needs clarification and translation into something better." The scout designation probably comes from the pre-publicity material for Star Trek Voyager, the same material that mentioned that Voyager was the second of an initial batch of four ships. NCC-74600: USS Intrepid History: commissioned in Nov 2370, first ship of her class. Notes: Registry is allegedly taken from a newsgroup post from Rick Sternbach - though he later denied this. Certainly Google Groups can find no such post, just lots of references to it's alleged existence. The LUG RPG supplement Ship Recognition Manual, Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet opts for NCC-74500 instead.
I'm quick to say, that if that quote is true, then Rick Sternbach dismissed the type classification 'Troubleshooter' in the same breath as he first uttered it. I like 'Cruiser' myself, although if it is officially a 'light explorer' that means just about the same thing
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, now that I've reviewed the actual post, his wording seems like maybe he's not completely adamant about it, but you get the general idea. He certainly doesn't dismiss it...
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
BTW, if you read on to the end of the BBS thread, you'll see the stuff about Alex Rosenzweig and the Sovereign.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
All he said is that he's thinking of "offering" it as the right number. He didn't confirm anywhere that he'd ever said it before. I'd assume his original denial is still in effect...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Why does it matter?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, apparently, it stopped mattering. Why did it matter enough to you that you had to bring it back up over a month later?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Sorry Mark couldn't help being a jerk.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) where he is a regular poster in the TrekTEch forum.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)